SPEECHES 


G  E  R  R  I  T     SMITH 

11 


IN 


CONGRESS,: 


NEW-YORK: 
MASON         BROTHERS. 

1855. 


E43/ 


ENTERED  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1855, 
BY   MASON  BROTHERS, 

In  the  Clerk's  Office  of  the  District  Court  of  the  United  States  for  the 
Southern  District  of  New-York. 


JOHN    A.    GRAY, 

PRINTER     AND     STEREOTYPER 

95  and  97  Cliff  street,  N.  Y. 


THE  papers  collected  in  this  volume,  are  copied,  without  change, 
from  their  original  publication. 

Mr.  SMITH  was  in  Congress  but  a  single  Session.  That  Session  be 
gan  December  5,  1853,  and  ended  August  7,  1854.  Owing  to  bad 
health,  he  did  not  take  his  seat  until  December  12th. 


CONTENTS. 


LETTER  TO  THE  VOTERS  OF  THE  COUNTIES  OF  OSWEGO  AND 

MADISON, 9 

SPEECH  ON  THE  EEFEEENCE  OF  THE  PRESIDENT'S  MESSAGE,    .  13 

ANSWER  TO  THE  QUESTION  OF  ME.  WRIGHT,  OF  PENNSYLVANIA,  33 

SPEECH  ON  THE  RESOLUTIONS  OF  THANKS  TO  CAPTAIN  INGRAHAM,  35 

RESOLUTIONS  ON  THE  PUBLIC  LANDS, 41 

SPEECH  ON  WAR, 45 

SPEECH  ON  THE  DISTRIBUTION  OF  SEEDS  BY  GOVERNMENT,       .  69 

SPEECH  ON  THE  HOMESTEAD  BILL, 71 

LETTER  EXPLAINING  TOTE  ON  THE  HOMESTEAD  BILL,        .        .  93 
SPEECH  ON  THE  BILL  TO  AID  THE  TERRITORY  OF  MINNESOTA 
IN  CONSTRUCTING  A  RAILROAD  FOR  MILITARY,  POSTAL, 
AND  FOR  OTHER  PURPOSES,        .       .     -  .       .       .       .91 

SPEECH  ON  THE  SECOND  DEFICIENCY  BILL lOt 

TEMPERANCE, m 

SPEECH  ON  THE  NEBRASKA  BILL, 113 

SPEECH  ON  THE  MEADE  CLAIMS, 217 

SPEECH  AGAINST  LIMITING  GRANTS  OF  LAND  TO  WHITE  PERSONS,  225 

SPEECH  ON  POLYGAMY, 229 

SPEECH  ON  THE  PACIFIC  RAILROAD, 235 

SPEECH  ON  THE  ABOLITION  OF  THE  POSTAL  SYSTEM,         .        •  259 


VI  CONTENTS. 

PAGE 

SPEECH  ON  SUPPLYING  THE  CITY  OP  WASHINGTON  WITH  WATER,  283 

SPEECH  ON  THE  MEXICAN  TREATY  AND  "MONROE  DOCTRINE,"  287 
LETTER  ANNOUNCING  HIS  PURPOSE  TO  EESIGN  HIS  SEAT  IN 

CONGRESS, 305 

SECOND  SPEECH  ON  THE  EICHARD  W.  MEADE  BILL,         .       .301 

SPEECH  FOR  THE  HARBOR  OF  OSWEGO,          .       .        .        .  311 

LETTER  TO  SENATOR  HAMLIN  ON  THE  RECIPROCITY  TREATY,    .  315 

SPEECH  ON  POSTAGE  BILL, 335 

SPEECH  IN  FAVOR  OF  PROHIBITING  ALL  TRAFFIC  IN  INTOXICAT 
ING  DRINKS  IN  THE  CITY  OF  WASHINGTON,    .        .        .  341 
SPEECH  AGAINST  PROVIDING  INTOXICATING  DRINKS  FOR  THE 

NAVY, 363 

SPEECH  IN  FAVOR  OF  INDEMNIFYING  MR.  KIDDLE  AND  MR. 

PEABODY, 367 

SPEECH  IN  FAVOR  OF  CUSTOM-HOUSES  AT  BUFFALO  AND  OS 
WEGO,      371 

FINAL  LETTER  TO  HIS  CONSTITUENTS, 375 

LETTER  TO  FREDERICK  DOUGLASS, 401 

LETTER  TO  HON.  H.  C.  GOODWIN,     ......  413 


SPEECHES  OF  GERRIT  SMITH. 


L    B    T    T    E    E  . 

To  the  Voters  of  the  Counties  of  Oswego  and  Madison : 

You  nominated  me  for  a  seat  in  Congress,  notwith 
standing  I  besought  you  not  to  do  so.  In  vain  was  my 
resistance  to  your  persevering  and  unrelenting  pur 
pose. 

I  had  reached  old  age.  I  had  never  held  office. 
Nothing  was  more  foreign  to  my  expectations,  and 
nothing  was  more  foreign  to  my  wishes,  than  the  hold 
ing  of  office.  My  multiplied  and  extensive  affairs  gave 
me  full  employment.  My  habits,  all  formed  in  private 
life,  all  shrank  from  public  life.  My  plans  of  useful 
ness  and  happiness  could  be  carried  out  only  in  the  se 
clusion,  in  which  my  years  had  been  spent. 

My  nomination,  as  I  supposed  it  would,  has  resulted 
in  my  election — and,  that  too,  by  a  very  large  major 
ity.  And,  now,  I  wish,  that  I  could  resign  the  office, 


10  LETTEE. 

which  your  partiality  has  accorded  to  me.  But,  I 
must  not — I  cannot.  To  resign  it  would  be  a  most  un 
grateful  and  offensive  requital  of  the  rare  generosity, 
which  broke  through  your  strong  attachments  to  party, 
and  bestowed  your  votes  on  one,  the  peculiarities  of 
whose  political  creed  leave  him  without  a  party.  Yery 
rare,  indeed,  is  the  generosity,  which  was  not  to  be  re 
pelled  by  a  political  creed,  among  the  peculiarities  of 
which  are 

1st.  That  it  acknowledges  no  law,  and  knows  no  law, 
for  slavery : — that,  not  only,  is  slavery  not  in  the  Federal 
Constitution,  but  that,  by  no  possibility,  could  it  be  brought 
either  into  the  Federal,  or  into  a  State,  Constitution. 

2d.  That  the  right  to  the  soil  is  as  natural,  absolute, 
and  equal,  as  the  right  to  the  light  and  the  air. 

3d.  That  political  rights  are  not  conventional,  but  na 
tural — inhering  in  all  persons,  the  black  as  well  as  the 
white,  the  female  as  well  as  the  male. 

4th.  That  the  doctrine  of  Free  Trade  is  the  necessary 
outgrowth  of  the  doctrine  of  the  human  brotherhood :  and 
that  to  impose  restrictions  on  commerce  is  to  build  up  un 
natural  and  sinful  barriers  across  that  brotherhood. 

5th.  That  national  wars  are  as  brutal,  barbarous,  and 
unnecessary,  as  are  the  violence  and  bloodshed,  to  which 
misguided  and  frenzied  individuals  are  prompted :  and 
that  our  country  should,  by  her  own  Heaven-trusting  and 
bwutiful  example,  hasten  the  day,  when  the  nations  of  the 
earth  "  shall  beat  their  swords  into  ploughshares  and  their 


LETTER.  11 

spears  into  pruning  hooks :  nation  shall  not  lift  up  sword 
against  nation,  neither  shall  they  learn  war  any  more" 

6th.  That  the  province  of  Government  is  but  to  pro- 
tect—to  protect  persons  and  property  •  and  that  the  build 
ing  of  railroads  and  canals  and  the  care  of  schools  and 
churches  fall  entirely  outside  of  its  limits,  and  exclusively 
within  the  range  of  "  the  voluntary  principle?  Narrow, 
however,  as  are  these  limits,  every  duty  within  them  is  to 
be  promptly,  faithfully,  fully  performed : — as  well,  for  in 
stance,  the  duty  on  the  part  of  the  Federal  Government  to 
put  an  end  to  the  dramshop  manufacture  of  paupers  and 
madmen  in  the  City  of  Washington,  as  the  duty  on  the 
part  of  the  State  Government  to  put  an  end  to  it  in  the 
State. 

7th.  That,  as  far  as  practicable,  every  officer,  from 
the  highest  to  the  lowest,  including  especially  the  President 
and  Postmaster,  should  be  elected  directly  by  the  people. 

I  need,  not  extend  any  further  the  enumeration  of 
the  features  of  my  peculiar  political  creed : — and  I  need 
not  enlarge  upon  the  reason,  which  I  gave,  why  I  must 
not,  and  can  not,  resign  the  office,  which  you  have  con 
ferred  upon  me.  I  will  only  add,  that  I  accept  it ; 
that  my  whole  heart  is  moved  to  gratitude  by  your  be- 
stowment  of  it ;  and  that,  God  helping  me,  I  will  so 
discharge  its  duties,  as  neither  to  dishonor  myself,  nor 
you.  GEKEIT  SMITH. 

PETERBORO,  November  5th,  1852. 


SPEECH 


ON  THE 


REFERENCE  OF  THE  PRESIDENT'S  MESSAGE. 

DECEMBEE       20,      1853. 

ME.  HOUSTON,  Chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Ways 
and  Means,  haying  submitted  Kesolutions  to  distribute 
the  President's  Message  among  different  Committees, 
Mr.  SMITH  was  the  first  person  to  obtain  the  floor. 
He  spoke  as  follows : 

It  is  natural,  Mr.  Chairman — nay,  it  is  almost  neces 
sary — that,  from  the  difference  in  our  temperament,  our 
education,  our  pursuits,  and  our  circumstances,  we 
should  take  different  views  of  many  a  subject,  which 
comes  before  us.  But,  if  we  are  only  kind  in  express 
ing  these  views,  and  patient  in  listening  to  them,  no 
harm,  but,  on  the  contrary,  great  good,  will  come  from 
our  discussions. 

As  this  is  the  first  time  I  have  had  the  floor,  it  may 


iltf :  .'KiiEEitaCE  :OE  THE  PRESIDENT'S  MESSAGE. 

be  well  for  me  now  to  confess,  that  I  am  in  the  habit 
of  freely  imputing  errors  to  my  fellow-men.  Perhaps, 
I  shall  fall  into  this  habit  on  the  present  occasion.  It 
may  be  a  bad  habit.  But  is  it  not  atoned  for  by  the 
fact,  that  I  do  not  claim,  that  I  am  myself  exempt  from 
errors ;  that  I  acknowledge,  that  I  abound  in  them ; 
and  that  I  am  ever  willing,  that  those  whom  I  assail, 
shall  make  reprisals?  I  trust,  Sir,  that  so  long  as  I 
shall  have  the  honor  to  hold  a  seat  in  this  body,  I  may 
be  able  to  keep  my  spirit  in  a  teachable  posture,  and  to 
throw  away  my  errors  as  fast  as  honorable  gentlemen 
around  me  shall  convince  me  of  them. 

I  have  risen,  Mr.  Chairman,  to  make  some  remarks 
on  that  portion  of  the  President's  Message,  which  it 
was  proposed,  a  few  moments  since,  to  refer  to  the 
Committee  on  Foreign  Affairs. 

The  Message  endorses,  fully  and  warmly,  the  conduct 
of  the  Administration  in  the  case  of  Martin  Koszta. 
For  my  own  part,  I  cannot  bestow  unqualified  praise 
on  that  conduct.  Scarcely  upon  Capt.  Ingraham  can  I 
bestow  such  praise.  It  is  true,  that  I  honor  him  for  his 
brave  and  just  determination  to  rescue  Koszta,  but  I 
would  have  had  him  go  a  step  farther  than  he  did,  and 
insist  on  Koszta's  absolute  liberty.  I  would  have  had 
him  enter  into  no  treaty,  and  hold  no  terms,  with  kid 
nappers.  I  would  have  had  him  leave  nothing  regard 
ing  Koszta's  liberty  to  the  discretion  of  the  French 
Consul  or  any  other  Consul :  to  the  discretion  of  the 


REFERENCE   OF   THE   PRESIDENT'S  MESSAGE.       15 

French  Government  or  any  other  Government.  Kosz- 
ta  was  an  American  subject — a  kidnapped  American 
subject — and  hence  the  American  Government  was 
bound  to  set  him,  immediately  and  unconditionally, 
free.  But  Capt.  Ingraham  represented  the  American 
Government.  For  that  occasion  he  was  the  American 
Government. 

For  saying  what  I  have  here  said,  I  may  appear  very 
inconsistent  in  the  eyes  of  many,  who  know  my  oppo 
sition  to  all  war ;  for  they  may  regard  Capt.  Ingraham 
as  having  been  ready  to  wage  war  upon  Austria — as 
having,  indeed,  actually  threatened  her  with  war.  But, 
notwithstanding  my  opposition  to  all  war,  I  defend 
Capt.  Ingraham's  purpose  to  use  force,  should  force  be 
come  necessary.  I  believe,  that  such  purpose  is  in 
harmony  with  the  true  office  of  Civil  Government.  I 
hold,  that  an  armed  national  police  is  proper,  and  that 
here  was  a  fit  occasion  for  using  it,  had  moral  influ 
ences  failed.  But  to  believe  in  this  is  not  to  believe  in 
war.  It  is  due  to  truth  to  add,  that  Capt.  Ingraham  should 
not  be  charged  with  designing  war  upon  Austria.  "Why 
should  he  be  thus  charged  ?  He  had,  properly,  nothing 
whatever  to  do  with  Austria,  nor  with  the  Austrian  Con 
sul.  There  was  no  occasion  for  his  doing  with  either 
of  them,  nor  for  his  even  thinking  of  either  of  them. 
For  him  to  have  supposed  that  Austria,  or  any  of  her 
authorities,  could  be  guilty  of  kidnapping,  would  have 
been  to  insult  her  and  them.  He  had  to  do  only  with 


16       EEFERENCE   OF  THE  PRESIDENT'S   MESSAGE. 

the  kidnappers,  who  were  restraining  Koszta  of  his 
liberty ;  and  all  he  had  to  do  with  these  kidnappers  was 
to  compel  them  to  an  unconditional  and  immediate  sur 
render  of  their  prey. 

I  will  say,  by  the  way,  that  I  do  not  condemn  the 
conduct  of  our  Minister,  Mr.  Marsh,  in  relation  to 
Koszta,  for  the  good  reason,  that  I  am  not  sure  what  it 
was.  If  it  was,  as  it  is  reported  to  have  been,  I  trust 
that  both  the  Administration  and  the  whole  country 
will  condemn  it. 

It  is  denied  in  certain  quarters,  that  Koszta  was  an 
American  subject.  But  Secretary  Marcy  has  argued 
triumphantly  that,  in  the  light  of  international  law,  he 
was.  I  regret,  that  he  had  not  proceeded  to  argue  it  in 
other  lights  also.  I  regret,  that  he  had  not  proceeded  to 
show  that,  even  if  admitted  international  law  is  to  the 
contrary,  nevertheless,  by  the  superior  law  of  reason 
and  justice,  Koszta  was  an  American  subject.  I  regret, 
that  he  had  not  proceeded  to  publish  to  the  world,  that, 
when  a  foreigner  becomes  an  inhabitant  of  this  land ; 
abjures  allegiance  to  the  Government  he  has  left ;  and 
places  himself  under  the  protection  of  ours ;  the  Ameri 
can  Government  will  protect  him,  and  that,  too,  whether 
with  or  without  international  law,  and  whether  with 
the  world  or  against  the  world.  In  a  word,  I  regret 
that  the  Secretary  did  not  declare,  that  if  international 
law  shall  not  authorize  the  American  Government  to 
protect  such  a  one,  then  American  law  shall.  It  is 


REFERENCE   OF  THE   PRESIDENT'S  MESSAGE.        17 

high  time,  that  America  should  justify  herself  in  such 
a  case  by  something  more  certain  and  authoritative 
than  European  codes.  It  is  high  time  that  she  should 
base  her  justification,  in  such  a  case,  on  the  immutable 
and  everlasting  principles  of  reason  and  justice. 

I  may  be  asked,  whether  I  would  allow,  that  the 
subject  of  a  foreign  Grovernment,  who  is  alleged  to  be 
charged  with  an  offence,  and  who  has  fled  to  our  coun 
try,  can  find  shelter  in  his  oath  of  allegiance  to  our 
Grovernment  ?  I  answer,  that  I  would  not  allow  Vn'm 
to  be  kidnapped ;  and  that,  if  his  former  Government 
wants  him,  it  must  make  a  respectful  call  on  our  Grov 
ernment  for  his  extradition.  I  add,  that  I  would  have 
our  Grovernment  the  sole,  judge  of  the  feet  whether  he 
is  charged  with  an  offence;  and  also  the  sole  judge 
whether  the  oifence  with  which  he  may  be  charged  is  a 
crime — a  real  and  essential  crime — for  which  he  should 
be  surrendered ;  or  a  merely  conventional  and  -nominal 
crime,  for  which  he  should  not  be  surrendered. 

A  few  words  in  regard  to  the  charge,  that  Gapt.  In- 
graham  invaded  the  rights  of  a  neutral  State.  It  is  to 
be  regretted,  that  the  Secretary  did  not  positively  and 
pointedly  deny  the  truth  of  this  charge.  I  admit,  that 
no  denial  of  it  was  needful  to  his  argument  with  Mr. 
Hulsemann.  The  denial  would,  however,  have  been 
useful.  No,  Sir ;  Capt.  Ingrahani  did  not  violate  the 
rights  of  Turkey.  But,  although  America  cannot  be 
justly  charged  with  violating  the  rights  of  Turkey, 


18       KEFERENCE  OF  THE  PRESIDENT'S  MESSAGE. 

Turkey  nevertheless  can  be  justly  charged  with  yiolat- 
ing  the  rights  of  America.  She  violated  the  rights  of 
America,  inasmuch  as  she  failed  to  afford  to  Koszta 
the  protection,  which  she  owed  him.  If  she  is  not 
fairly  chargeable  with  permitting  him  to  be  kidnapped, 
she  nevertheless  is  fairly  chargeable  with  permitting 
him  to  remain  kidnapped,  and  that  is  virtually  the 
same  thing.  To  say,  that  Capt.  Ingraham  violated  the 
rights  of  Turkey,  is  nonsense.  It  is  nonsense,  if  for  no 
other  reason,  than  that  she  had  no  rights  in  the  case,  to 
be  violated.  She  had  none,  for  the  simple  reason,  that 
she  suffered  her  laws  to  be  silent.  The  only  ground 
on  which  a  neutral  State  can  claim  respect  at  the 
hands  of  belligerents  is,  that  so  far  as  she  is  concerned, 
their  rights  are  protected.  If  she  allows  injustice 
to  them,  then  they  may  do  themselves  justice.  If  she 
refuses  to  use  the  law  for  them,  then  they  may  take  it 
into  their  own  hands.  For  Turkey  to  suspend  her  laws, 
as  she  did  in  the  present  case,  is  to  leave  to  herself  no 
ground  of  wonder  or  complaint,  if  a  brave  Capt.  Ingra 
ham  supplies  her  lack  of  laws. 

But  I  may  be  asked,  whether  I  would  really  have 
had  Capt.  Ingraham  fire  into  the  Austrian  ship  ?  I  an 
swer,  that  I  would  have  had  him  set  Koszta  free,  cost 
what  it  might.  At  the  same  tune  I  admit,  that  there 
would  have  been  blame,  had  it  cost  a  single  life ;  and 
that  this  blame  would  have  rested,  not  upon  the  Turks 
and  Austrians  only,  but  upon  our  own  countrymen 


REFERENCE  OF  THE  PRESIDENT'S  MESSAGE.       19 

also.  This  is  so,  for  the  reason,  that  neither  our  own 
country  nor  any  other  country  is  so  fully  identified  with 
justice,  in  the  eyes  of  all  the  world,  as  to  make  its 
character  for  justice  an  effectual  substitute  for  violence — 
as  to  make,  in  a  word,  its  character  for  justice,  its  suffi 
cient  power  to  obtain  justice.  Were  our  country  prover 
bial,  the  world  over,  for  wisdom  and  goodness — were  our 
love  to  God  and  man  known  and  read  of  all  men — were 
every  nation  to  know  that,  both  at  home  and  abroad, 
our  Government  acts  upon  Christian  principles — then 
no  nation  would  wrong  us,  and  no  nation  would  let  us 
be  wronged.  Then,  if  one  of  our  people  were  kidnap 
ped  in  a  foreign  land,  as  was  Koszta,  the  Government 
of  that  land  would  promptly  surrender  him,  at  our 
request.  It  would  pass  upon  our  title  to  the  individual 
confidingly  and  generously,  rather  than  jealously  and 
scrutinously.  And  even  if  it  entertained  much  doubt 
of  our  title,  it  would  nevertheless  waive  it,  under  the  in 
fluence  of  its  conviction,  that  we  ask  nothing,  which  we 
do  not  honestly  believe  to  be  our  due,  and  that  our  cha 
racter  is  such,  as  richly  to  entitle  us  to  all,  that  is  possi 
bly  our  due.  Having  such  a  character,  our  moral  force 
would  supersede  the  application  of  our  physical  force. 
Had  physical  force  been  needful  to  effect  the  deliverance 
of  Koszta,  it  would  have  been  needful  merely  because 
the  American  people  and  American  Government  lacked 
the  moral  character,  or,  in  other  words,  the  moral  force, 
adequate  to  its  deliverance.  But,  as  I  have  already  in- 


20       REFERENCE   OF  THE  PRESIDENT'S  MESSAGE. 

timated,  our  nation  is  no  more  deficient  in  this  respect 
than  other  nations. 

I  said,  that  I  could  not  bestow  unqualified  praise  on 
the  Administration  for  its  part  in  the  Koszta  affair.  In 
one  or  two  of  those  passages  of  rare  rhetorical  beauty 
in  his  letter  to  Mr.  Hulsemann,  Secretary  Marcy  insin 
uates  the  despotic  character  of  Austria.  Now,  I  will 
not  say,  that  there  was  impudent  hypocrisy  in  the  in 
sinuation  ;  but  I  will  say,  that  the  insinuation  was  in 
bad  taste,  and  that  it  was  bad  policy.  A  cunning  policy 
would  studiously  avoid,  in  our  diplomatic  correspond 
ence,  all  allusions  to  despotism  and  oppression,  lest 
such  allusions  might  suggest  to  the  reader  comparisons 
between  our  country  and  other  countries,  that  would  be 
quite  unfavorable  to  us. 

I  admit,  that  Austria  is  an  oppressor.  But  is  it  not 
equally  true,  and  far  more  glaringly  true,  that  America 
is  a  much  greater  and  guiltier  oppressor?  Indeed, 
compared  with  our  despotism,  which  classes  millions  of 
men,  women,  and  children,  with  cattle,  Austrian  des 
potism  is  but  as  the  little  finger  to  the  loins.  Surely, 
surely,  it  will  never  be  time  for  America  to  taunt  Aus 
tria  with  being  an  oppressor,  until  the  influence  of 
American  example  is  such,  as  to  shame  Austria  out  of 
her  oppression,  rather  than  to  justify  and  confirm  her 
in  it. 

In  this  same  letter  to  the  representative  of  Austria, 
Mr.  Marcy  presumes  to  quote,  as  one  of  the  justifi 


KEFEKENCE  OF  THE  PEESIDENT'S  MESSAGE.       21 

cations  of  Capt.  Ingraham's  conduct,  the  Divine  law, 
to  do  unto  others  as  we  would  have  others  do  unto  us. 
Now,  was  it  not  the  very  acme  of  presumption  for 
the  American  Government  to  quote  this  law,  while  it 
surpasses  every  other  Government  in  trampling  it  under 
foot  ?  Did  Mr.  Marcy  suppose  Mr.  Hulsemann  to  be 
stone-blind?  Did  he  suppose,  that  Mr.  Hulsemann 
had  lived  in  the  city  of  Washington  so  long,  and  yet 
had  seen  nothing  of  the  buying  and  selling  of  human 
beings  as  brutes,  which  is  continually  going  on  here, 
under  the  eye,  and  under  the  authority,  of  Govern 
ment  ?  Did  he  suppose,  that  Mr.  Hulsemann  could  be 
ignorant  of  the  fact,  that  the  American  Government  is 
the  great  slave-catcher  for  the  American  slave-holders  ? 
Did  he  suppose  him  to  be  ignorant  of  the  fact,  that  the 
great  American  slave-trade  finds  in  the  American  Gov- ' 
eminent  its  great  patron ;  and  that  this  trade  is  carried 
on,  not  only  under  the  general  protection,  but  under 
the  specific  regulations  of  Congress  ?  Did  he  suppose 
him  to  be  ignorant  of  the  fact,  that  many,  both  at  the 
North  and  South,  (among  whom  is  the  President  him 
self,)  claim,  that  American  slavery  is  a  national  institu 
tion  ? — and  made  such  by  the  American  Constitution  ? 
It  is  a  national  institution.  If  not  made  such  by  our 
organic  law,  it  is,  nevertheless,  made  such  by  the  enact 
ments  of  Congress,  the  decisions  of  the  Judiciary,  and 
the  acquiescence  of  the  American  People.  And  did 
Mr.  Marcy  suppose  Mr.  Hulsemann  to  be  entirely  una- 


22       KEFEKENCE   OF  THE  PKESIDENT'S  MESSAGE. 

ware,  that  the  present  Administration  surpasses  all  its 
predecessors  in  shameless  pledges  and  devotion  to  the 
Slave  Power  ?  Certainly,  Mr.  Marcy  fell  into  a  great 
mistake,  in  presuming  Mr.  Hulsemann  to  be  in  total 
darkness  on  all  these  points.  If,  indeed,  a  mistake,  it 
is  a  very  ludicrous  one.  If  but  an  affectation,  it  is  too 
wicked  to  be  ludicrous. 

I  referred,  a  moment  since,  to  some  of  the  evidences 
of  the  nationality  of  American  slavery.  It,  sometimes, 
suits  the  slaveholders  to  claim,  that  their  Slavery  is  an 
exclusively  State  concern;  and  that  the  North  has, 
therefore,  nothing  to  do  with  it.  But  as  well  may  you, 
when  urging  a  man  up-hill  with  a  heavy  load  upon  his 
back,  and  with  your  lash  also  upon  his  back,  tell  him, 
that  he  has  nothing  to  do  either  with  the  load  or  the 
lash.  The  poor  North  has  much  to  do  with  slavery. 
It  staggers  under  its  load  and  smarts  under  its  lash. 

But  I  must  do  Secretary  Marcy  and  the  Administra 
tion  justice.  What  I  have  said,  were  I  to  stop  here, 
would  convey  the  idea,  that,  in  his  letter  to  Mr.  Hulse 
mann,  the  Secretary  inculcates  the  duty  of  uncondi 
tional  obedience  to  the  law,  which  requires  us  to  do 
unto  others,  as  we  would  have  others  do  unto  us.  He 
is,  however,  very  far  from  doing  so.  He  remembers, 
as  with  paternal  solicitude,  American  slavery,  and  the 
Fugitive  Slave  Act,  and  provides  for  their  safety.  To 
this  end  he  qualifies  the  commandment  of  God,  and 
makes  it  read,  that  we  are  to  obey  it,  only  when  there 


REFERENCE  OF  THE  PRESIDENT'S  MESSAGE.       23 

is  no  commandment  of  man  to  the  contrary.  In  a  word, 
he  adopts  the  American  theology — that  pro-slavery 
theology,  which  makes  human  Government  paramount 
to  the  Divine,  and  exalts  the  wisdom  and  authority  of 
man  above  the  wisdom  and  authority  of  God. 

I  said,  that  I  must  do  the  Secretary  justice :  and  I  have 
now  done  it.  But  in  doing  it,  a  piece  of  flagrant  injustice 
has  been  brought  to  light.  For  what  less  than  flagrant 
can  I  call  his  injustice  to  the  Bible  ?  The  Secretary  says, 
that  this  blessed  volume  "  enjoins  upon  all  men,  every 
where,  when  not  acting  under  legal  restraint,  to  do  unto 
others  whatever  they  would  that  others  should  do  unto 
them."  Now,  the  phrase  "  when  not  acting  under 
legal  restraint"  is  a  sheer  interpolation.  The  command 
ment,  as  we  find  it  in  the  Bible,  is  without  qualification 
—is  absolute.  The  Administration  is  guilty,  therefore, 
through  its  Secretary,  of  deliberately  corrupting  the 
Bible.  Moreover,  it  is  guilty  of  deliberately  corrupting 
this  authentic  and  sacred  record  of  Christianity  at  the 
most  vital  point.  For  this  commandment  to  do  unto 
others  as  we  would  have  others  do  unto  us,  is  the  sum 
total  of  the  requirements  of  Christianity.  I  say  so  on 
the  authority  of  Jesus  Christ  himself.  For  when  He 
had  given  this  commandment,  He  added :  "  for  this  is 
the  law  and  the  prophets." 

I  am  not  unmindful  how  strong  a  temptation  the 
Administration  was  under,  in  this  instance,  to  corrupt 
the  Bible.  I  am  willing  to  make  all  due  allowance  on 


24:       KEFEKENCE  OF  THE  PKESIDENT'S  MESSAGE. 

that  account.  Strong,  however,  as  was  the  tempta 
tion,  it  nevertheless  should  have  been  resisted.  I  am 
well  aware,  that  for  the  Administration  to  justify  the 
rescue  of  Koszta  on  the  unqualified,  naked  Bible 
ground,  of  doing  unto  others  as  we  would  have  others 
do  unto  us,  would  be  to  throw  open  the  door  for  the 
rescue  of  every  fugitive  slave.  It  would  be  to  justify 
the  rescue  of  Shadrach  at  Boston.  It  would  be  to  jus 
tify  the  celebrated  rescue  in  my  own  neighborhood — I 
mean  the  rescue  of  Jerry  at  Syracuse.  It  would  be  to 
justify  the  bloody  rescue  at  Christiana.  For,  not  only 
is  it  true,  that  all  men  would  be  rescued  from  slavery, 
but  it  is  also  true,  that  very  nearly  all  men  would  be 
rescued  from  slavery,  even  at  the  expense  of  blood.  I 
add,  that  for  the  Administration  to  justify  on  naked 
Bible  ground  the  rescue  of  Koszta,  would  be,  in  effect, 
to  justify  the  deliverance  of  every  slave.  Now,  for  an 
Administration,  that  sold  itself  in  advance  to  the  Slave 
Power,  and  that  is  indebted  for  all  its  hopes  and  for 
its  very  being  to  that  Power- — for  such  an  Administra 
tion  to  take  the  position  of  simple  Bible  truth,  and 
thereby  invite  the  subversion  of  all  slavery,  would  be 
to  practise  the  cruellest  ingratitude.  Such  ingratitude 
could  not  fail  to  exasperate  the  Slave  Power — that 
mighty  and  dominant  Power,  before  which  not  only 
the  Administrations  of  the  American  People,  but  the 
American  People  themselves,  fall  down  as  abjectly  as 
did  Nebuchadnezzar's  people  before  the  image,  which 


REFERENCE   OF   THE   PRESIDENT'S   MESSAGE.       25 

he  had  set  up.  Nevertheless,  however  important  it 
may  be  to  maintain  slavery,  it  is  far  more  important  to 
maintain  Christianity ;  and  the  Administration  is  there 
fore  to  be  condemned  for  giving  up  Christianity  for 
slavery.  I  add,  that,  if  American  slavery  is,  as  the 
famous  John  Wesley  called  it,  "the  sum  of  all  villa 
inies,"  then  it  is  certainly  a  very  poor  bargain  to  ex 
change  Christianity  for  it. 

Sir,  this  doctrine  of  the  Administration,  that  human 
enactments  are  paramount  to  Divine  law,  and  that  the 
Divine  authority  is  not  to  be  allowed  to  prevail  against 
human  authority,  is  a  doctrine  as  perilous  to  man  as  it 
is  dishonorable  to  God.  In  denying  the  supremacy  of 
God,  it  annihilates  the  rights  of  man.  I  trust,  that  a 
better  day  will  come,  when  all  men  shall  be  convinced, 
that  human  rights  are  not  to  be  secured  by  human 
cunning  and  human  juggles,  but  solely  by  the  unfal 
tering  acknowledgment  of  the  Divine  Power.  This 
crazy  world  is  intent  on  saving  itself  by  dethroning 
God.  But,  in  that  better  day,  to  which  I  have  refer 
red,  the  conviction  shall  be  universal,  that  the  only 
safety  of  man  consists  in  leaving  God  upon  His 
throne. 

To  illustrate  the  absurdity  of  this  atheistic  doctrine 
of  the  Administration,  we  will  suppose  that,  by  a 
statute  of  Turkey,  any  person,  Hungarian-born,  ought 
to  be  kidnapped.  Then,  according  to  this  atheistic 
doctrine,  Capt.  Ingraham  had  no  right  to  rescue  Koszta, 


26       REFERENCE   OF  THE  PRESIDENT'S  MESSAGE. 

for  his  kidnappers,  in  that  case,  were  acting  "  under 
legal  restraint." 

Mr.  SOLLERS,  of  Maryland.  Mr.  Chairman,  what 
is  the  question  before  the  House  ? 

The  CHAIRMAN,  (Mr.  •  ORB,  of  South  Carolina.) 
Does  the  gentleman  from  Maryland  rise  to  a  question 
of  order  ? 

Mr.  SOLLERS.     I  do. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  What  is  the  gentleman's  ques 
tion? 

Mr.  SOLLERS.  I  want  to  know  what  is  the  sub 
ject  before  the  House. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  The  subject  is  the  reference  oi 
the  President's  Message. 

Mr.  SOLLERS.  The  gentleman  from  New-York  is 
making  an  abolition  speech,  and  I  do  not  see  its  rele 
vancy  to  the  question  before  the  House, 

The  CHAIRMAN.  The  gentleman  from  New-York 
is  entitled  to  the  floor,  and  he  is  in  order. 

Mr.  SMITH.  The  gentleman  from  Maryland  says, 
that  I  am  making  an  abolition  speech.  I  am :  and  I 
hope  he  will  be  patient  under  it.  I,  in  my  turn,  will 
be  patient  under  an  cmft'-abolition  speech. 

But  I  will  proceed  in  my  illustrations  of  the  absurd 
ity  of  this  atheistic  doctrine  of  the  Administration. 
What,  too,  if  there  were  a  statute  of  Turkey,  declaring 


BEFEKEXCE   OF  THE  PKESIDENT's  MESSAGE.       27 

it  right  to  kidnap  any  person,  who  is  American-born  ? 
Then,  according  to  this  corrupt  theology  of  the  Admin 
istration,  we  should  not  be  at  liberty  to  rescue  an  Ame 
rican  citizen,  who  might  be  kidnapped  in  Turkey. 
And  what,  too,  if  acting  under  human  authority,  or,  in 
the  language  of  the  Administration,  "under  legal 
restraint,"  the  people  of  one  of  the  Barbary  States 
should  kidnap  Secretary  Marcy,  and  even  President 
Pierce  himself — then,  also,  according  to  this  Grod-de- 
throning  doctrine  of  the  Administration,  our  hands 
would  be  tied ;  and  we  should  have  no  right  to  reclaim 
these  distinguished  men.  The  supposition,  that  such 
distinguished  men  can  be  kidnapped,  is  not  absurd. 
The  great  Cervantes  was  a  slave  in  one  of  the  Barbary 
States.  So,  too,  was  the  great  Arago.  And  it  is  not 
beyond  the  pale  of  possibility,  that  even  the  great 
Secretary  and  the  great  President  may  yet  be  slaves. 
I  am  aware,  that  they,  who  stand  up  so  stoutly  for 
slavery,  and  for  the  multiplication  of  its  victims,  dream 
not,  that  they  themselves  can  ever  be  its  victims.  They 
dream  not,  that  this  chalice,  which  they  put  to  the  lips 
of  others,  can  ever  be  returned  to  their  own.  And, 
yet,  even  this  terrible  retribution,  or  one  still  more 
terrible  than  any,  which  this  life  can  afford,  may  be 
the  retribution  of  such  stupendous  treachery  and  en 
mity  to  the  human  brotherhood.  Little  did  Napoleon 
think,  when,  with  perfidy  unutterable,  he  had  the  noble 


28       REFERENCE   OF  THE  PRESIDENT'S  MESSAGE. 

but  ill-fated  Toussaint  L'Ouverture  carried  across  the 
waters,  to  perish  in  a  prison, 

"That  lie  himself,  then  greatest  among  men, 
Should,  in  like  manner,  be  so  soon  conveyed 
Athwart  the  deep."* 

to  perish,  also,  in  a  prison. 

In  that  great  day  (for  which,  as  it  has  been  sublime 
ly  said,  all  other  days  were  made)  when  every  man 
shall  "receive  the  things  done  in  his  body,"  let  me  not 
be  found  of  the  number  of  those,  who  have  wielded 
civil  office  to  bind  and  multiply  the  victims  of  oppres 
sion.  When  I  witness  the  tendency  of  power  in 
human  hands,  be  it  civil  or  ecclesiastical,  or  any  other 
power,  to  such  perversion,  I  shrink  from  possessing  it, 
lest  I,  too,  might  be  tempted  to  lend  it  to  the  op 
pressor  instead  of  the  oppressed.  "So  I  returned," 
says  the  wise  man,  "and  considered  all  the  oppressions 
that  are  done  under  the  sun ;  and  behold  the  tears  of 
such  as  were  oppressed,  and  they  had  no  comforter : 
and  on  the  side  of  their  oppressors  there  was  power  ; 
but  they  had  no  comforter." 

I  proceed  to  say,  that  this  detestable  doctrine  of  the 
Administration  goes  to  blot  all  over  that  page  of  histo 
ry,  of  which  Americans  are  so  proud.  I  mean  that 
page,  which  records  the  famous  achievement  of  Decatur 
and  his  brave  companions  in  the  Mediterranean.  For 

*  Rogera's  Italy. 


BEFEBENCE  OF  THE  PBESIDENT's  MESSAGE.       29 

it  must  be  remembered,  that  tlie  Algerine  slaveholders, 
who  were  so  severely  chastised,  and  that,  too,  notwith 
standing,  being  the  most  ignorant,  they  were  the  least 
guilty  class  of  slaveholders — I  say,  it  must  be  remem 
bered,  that  these  Algerine  slaveholders  acted  under 
human  Government,  or,  in  the  words  of  the  Adminis 
tration,  "  under  legal  restraint ;"  and  were,  therefore, 
according  to  the  wisdom  of  the  Administration,  released 
from  all  obligation  to  do  unto  others,  as  they  would 
have  others  do  unto  them ;  and  were  at  entire  liberty 
to  enslave  Americans  as  well  as  other  people. 

I  add,  that  this  blasphemous  doctrine  of  the  Admin 
istration  leaves  unjustified,  and  utterly  condemns,  every 
war,  which  this  nation  has  waged ;  for  every  such  war 
has  been  against  a  people  acting  under  the  authority  of 
their  Government,  or,  in  the  language  of  the  Adminis 
tration,  "  under  legal  restraint."  What  if  our  enemy, 
in  fighting  against  us,  was  guilty  of  fighting  against 
God  ? — was  guilty  of  trampling  under  foot  the  Divine 
law?  Nevertheless,  according  to  the  sage  teachings 
of  the  Administration,  his  guilt  was  overlaid  with  inno 
cence,  from  the  feet,  that  he  was  "acting  under  legal 
restraint."  Surely,  it  will  not  be  pretended,  that  our 
transgressions  of  the  Divine  law  are  excused  by  our 
"legal  restraint,"  and  that  the  like  trangressions,  on 
the  part  of  others,  cannot  be  excused  by  the  like  cause. 
Surely  if  we  may  put  in  the  plea  of  "  legal  restraint" 
against  Divine  laws,  so  may  others. 


80       REFERENCE   OF  THE  PRESIDENT'S  MESSAGE. 

Alas,  what  a  disgusting  spectacle  does  the  Adminis 
tration  present,  in  its  deliberate  corruption  of  the  Bible, 
for  the  guilty  purpose  of  sparing  so  abominable  and 
vile  a  thing  as  slavery !  Alas,  what  a  pitiable  specta 
cle  of  self-degradation  does  this  nation  present,  in 
choosing  such  an  Administration,  and  in  remaining 
patient  under  it!  And  how  rank,  and  broad,  and 
glaring,  is  the  hypocrisy  upon  the  brow  of  this  nation, 
who,  whilst  her  feet  are  planted  on  the  millions  she 
has  doomed  to  the  horrors,  and  agonies,  and  pollutions 
of  slavery,  holds,  nevertheless,  in  one  hand,  that  pre 
cious,  Heaven-sent  volume,  which  declares,  that  God 
"hath  made  of  one  blood  all  nations  of  men,  for  to 
dwell  on  all  the  face  of  the  earth  ;"  and  in  the  other, 
that  emphatically  American  paper,  which  declares,  that 
"  all  men  are  created  equal  I"  And  how  greatly  is  the 
guilt  of  this  nation,  in  her  matchless  oppressions,  ag 
gravated  by  the  fact,  that  she  owes  infinitely  more  than 
ever  did  any  other  nation  to  Christianity,  and  liberty, 
and  knowledge  ;  and  that  she  is,  therefore,  under  infi 
nitely  greater  obligation  than  was  ever  any  other  nation, 
to  set  an  example,  blessed  in  all  its  influences,  both  at 
home  and  abroad!  Other  nations  began  their  exist 
ence  in  unfavorable  circumstances.  They  laid  their 
foundations  in  despotism,  and  ignorance,  and  supersti 
tion.  But  Christianity,  and  liberty,  and  knowledge, 
waited  upon  the  birth  of  this  nation,  and  breathed  into 
it  the  breath  of  life. 


REFERENCE   OF  THE   PRESIDENT'S   MESSAGE.       31 

My  hour  is  nearly  up,  and  I  will  bring  my  remarks 
to  a  close.  After  all,  the  Administration  lias  done  us 
good  service,  in  attempting  to  qualify  the  Divine  com 
mand,  to  do  unto  others  as  we  would  have  others  do 
unto  us ;  for,  in  attempting  to  do  this  for  the  sake  of 
saving  slavery,  it  has,  by  irresistible  implication,  ad 
mitted  that  the  command  itself  requires  us  to  "  let  the 
oppressed  go  free." 

This  precious  law  of  .Grod  contains,  as  they  are  wont 
to  insist,  ample  authority  for  all  the  demands  of  the 
abolitionists — that  despised  class  of  men,  to  which  I  am 
always  ready  to  declare,  that  I  belong.  Hence,  the 
Administration,  in  quoting  this  law  as  the  great  rule  of 
conduct  between  men,  has,  in  no  unimportant  sense, 
joined  the  abolitionists.  I  say  it  has  quoted  this  law— 
this  naked  law.  I  say  so,  not  because  I  forget  the 
words  with  which  it  attempted  to  qualify  the  law,  but 
because,  inasmuch  as  the  law,  which  God  has  made  ab 
solute,  man  cannot  qualify,  these  qualifying  words  fall 
to  the  ground,  and  leave  the  naked  law  in  all  its  force. 
I  admit,  that  the  Administration  did  not  quote  this  law 
for  the  sake  of  manifesting  its  union  with  the  abolition 
ists  ;  for,  yet  a  while  at  least,  it  expects  more  advan 
tage  from  its  actual  union  with  the  slaveholders  than  it 
could  expect  from  any  possible  union  with  the  aboli 
tionists.  No ;  the  Administration  quoted  this  law  for 
the  sake  of  serving  a  purpose  against  Austria ;  and  it 
flattered  itself  that,  by  means  of  a  few  qualifying  words, 


32       REFERENCE   OF  THE   PRESIDENT'S   MESSAGE. 

it  could  shelter  slavery  from  the  force  of  the  quotation. 
But,  in  this,  it  fell  into  a  great  mistake.  Its  greater 
mistake,  however,  was  in  presuming  to  quote  the  Bible 
at  all.  The  Administration  should  have  been  aware 
that  the  Bible  is  a  holy  weapon,  and  is  therefore  fitted 
to  anti-slavery,  instead  of  pro-slavery,  hands.  It  should 
have  been  aware,  that  it  is  more  dangerous  for  pro- 
slavery  men  to  undertake  to  wield  this  weapon,  than  it 
is  for  children  to  play  with  edge  tools.  The  Bible  can 
never  be  used  in  behalf  of  a  bad  cause,  without  detri 
ment  to  such  cause. 

I  conclude,  Mr.  Chairman,  by  expressing  the  hope, 
that  this  egregious  blunder  of  the  Administration,  in 
calling  the  Bible  to  its  help— a  blunder,  by  the  way, 
both  as  ludicrous  and  wicked  as  it  is  egregious — will, 
now  that  the  blunder  is  exposed,  be  not  without  its 
good  effect,  in  the  way  of  admonition.  I  trust,  that 
this  pro-slavery  Administration,  and,  indeed,  all  pro- 
slavery  parties  and  pro-slavery  persons,  will  be  effectu 
ally  admonished  by  this  blunder  to  let  the  Bible  en 
tirely  alone,  until  they  shall  have  some  better  cause 
than  slavery  to  serve  by  it. 


ANSWER 


TO    THE 


QUESTION  OF  MR,  WRIGHT  OF  PENNSYLVANIA. 

DECEMBER      22,      1853. 

IN  the  course  of  his  reply  to  the  speech  of  Mr. 
Smith,  made  two  days  previous,  Mr.  Wright  put  a 
question  to  Mr.  Smith. 

Mr.  SMITH,  of  New- York.  Will  the  gentleman  yield 
me  the  floor  to  reply  to  his  question  ? 

Mr.  WEIGHT.  Does  the  gentleman  desire  to  make  a 
speech  ? 

Mr.  SMITH.  I  rose,  not  because  I  wish  to  reply  to 
the  gentleman's  question,  for  I  do  not  wish  to  reply  to 
it.  But,  as  he  put  the  question  to  me,  and  might  deem 
me  uncivil  were  I  not  to  reply  to  it,  I  am  willing  to 
reply  to  it ;  and  I  trust  that  the  gentleman  will  feel  no 
better  after  my  reply. 

Mr.  WRIGHT.  After  having  called  the  gentleman 
out,  I  cannot  refuse  him  the  floor. 


34      ANSWEK  TO  THE  QUESTION   OF  MR.  WEIGHT. 

Mr.  SMITH.  The  gentleman  has  referred  me  to  that 
clause  of  the  Constitution  which  respects  fugitives  from 
service;  and  it  is  on  this  clause  that  his  question  is 
based.  Now,  not  to  consume  the  time  of  the  gentleman 
with  any  other  reason  for  my  denying  that  the  word 
"service"  in  the  Constitution  refers  to  slavery,  I  will 
only  advert  to  the  fact,  that  three  days  previous  to  the 
close  of  the  Convention  which  framed  the  Constitution, 
the  committee  on  style  made  their  report ;  and  that  then 
it  was  moved  to  strike  out  the  word  "  servitude,"  and 
to  supply  its  place  with  the  word  "  service."  This  sub 
stitution  was  made  by  a  unanimous  vote,  and  for  the 
avowed  reason  that  "servitude"  denotes  the  condition 
of  slaves,  and  "service"  the  condition  of  freemen.  I 
hold,  therefore,  that  the  word  "  service"  in  the  Consti 
tution  refers  to  freemen,  and  to  freemen  only.  To  hold 
that  the  framers  of  the  Constitution  did,  after  the  sub 
stitution  I  have  referred  to,  mean  that  the  word  should 
refer  to  slavery,  would  be  to  stigmatize  them  with 
hypocrisy.  I  add  that  the  facts  I  have  here  given, 
may  be  found  in  the  Madison  Pa.pers. 

Mr.  WRIGHT.  That  is  not  my  recollection  of  the 
historical  proceedings  of  that  convention  which  formed 
the  Constitution. 

Mr.  SMITH,  I  refer  the  gentleman  to  the  Madison 
Papers. 


SPEECH 


ON   THE 


RESOLUTIONS  OF  THANKS  TO  CAPT.  INGRAHAM. 

JANUARY      5,      1854. 

PEEHAPS,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  should  not  have  presumed 
to  rise,  had  I  been  duly  influenced  by  what  the  gentle 
man  from  Alabama  has  just  now  told  us  of  the  charac 
teristics  of  a  statesman.  For,  in  that  gentleman's  esteem, 
the  heart  does  not  enter  into  the  composition  of  a  states 
man.  With  him,  the  statesman  is  a  creature  all  head, 
and  no  heart.  .  With  me,  on  the  contrary,  the  heart  is 
of  more  account  than  the  head — and  that,  too,  in  all 
the  possible  circumstances  of  life,  including  even  the 
province  of  statesmanship.  A  higher  authority  than 
the  gentleman  from  Alabama  makes  more  of  the  heart 
than  of  the  head.  His  command,  as  well  upon  the 
statesman  as  upon  every  other  person,  is,  "My  son, 
give  me  thine  heart."  The  heart  first,  and  the  head 
afterwards.  The  faculties  of  man  drive  on  but  to  mis- 


#6  THANKS  TO   CAPTAIN   INGRAHAM. 

chief  and  ruin,  unless  the  heart  be  first  given  to  the 
right  and  the  true. 

I  find,  that  gentlemen  of  Alabama  agree  in  their  defi 
nition  of  a  statesman.  Another  gentleman  from  that 
State,  [Mr.  Phillips,]  when  reviewing  my  speech,  a 
fortnight  ago,  kindly  informed  me  that  I  am  but  a  sen 
timentalist,  and  not  a  statesman.  To  use  almost  pre 
cisely  his  words :  "Though  I  had  attained  some  noto 
riety  in  the  country  as  a  sentimentalist,  I  had  never 
risen  to  the  dignity  of  a  statesman."  I  beg  that 
gentleman  to  be  patient  with  me.  I  may  yet  become 
the  dignified,  heartless,  frigid,  conventional  sort  of 
being,  that  makes  up  the  accepted  and  current  idea  of  a 
statesman.  They  say,  that  Congress  is  a  capital  place 
for  making  a  statesman  of  one,  who  is  willing  to  come 
under  the  process.  They  say  so,  for  the  reason  that 
Congress  is  a  capital  place  for  getting  rid  of  all  senti 
ment,  and  sympathy,  and  conscience.  Now,  I  cannot 
say  that  I  am  very  ambitious  to  have  realized,  in  my 
own  person,  the  popular  idea  of  a  statesman.  Never 
theless,  I  beg  the  gentleman  to  be  patient  with  me. 
When  I  shall  have  been  in  Congress  a  few  weeks 
longer,  I  may  so  far  have  lost  my  heart,  and  killed  my 
soul,  as  to  be  a  candidate  for  the  honors  of  a  statesman. 
And  then  the  honorable  gentleman  will,  no  doubt,  be 
willing  to  take  me  by  his  own  right  hand,  and  install 
me  into  that  dignity  which  he  and  other  statesmen  so 
self-complacently  enjoy. 


THANKS  TO   CAPTAIN   INGRAHAM.  37 

But  to  come  to  the  resolutions.  I  like  them  exceed 
ingly;  and  I  should  rejoice  to  see  them  pass  unani 
mously.  I  like  them  especially  because  they  avoid  all 
questions  of  nationality  and  citizenship  ;  and  leave  the 
justification  of  Capt.  Ingraham  to  rest  on  the  naked 
ground  of  humanity.  I  was  much  pleased  to  find  the 
distinguished  gentlemen  from  Virginia  and  South  Caro 
lina,  [Mr.  Bayly  and  Mr.  Orr,]  defending  the  resolutions 
in  this  light.  Delighted  was  I,  when  I  heard  the  gen 
tleman  from  South  Carolina  [Mr.  Orr]  declare,  in  such 
impassioned  language,  that  humanity  is,  of  itself,  ample 
justification  for  Captain  Ingraham's  conduct. 

Capt.  Ingraham,  according  to  the  implication  of  the 
resolutions,  and  according  to  these  gentlemen's  inter 
pretation  and  defence  of  the  resolutions,  obeyed  the 
simple  law  of  humanity— that  law,  against  which,  to 
use  Bible  language,  "there  is  no  law."  Not  only  is  it 
paramount  law,  but  against  it  there  can  be  no  law. 
Capt.  Ingraham  recognized  no  law  for  kidnapping  and 
oppressing  his  fellow  man.  He  believed  that  law  is  for 
the  protection  of  rights,  and  he  would  not  acknowledge 
as  law  what  was  for  the  destruction  of  rights ;  and, 
therefore,  without  pausing  to  inquire  into  any  enact 
ments  of  Turkey  or  Austria,  he  generously  and  nobly 
surrendered  himself  to  the  commands  of  the  law  of 
humanity,  and  delivered  Koszta. 

Capt.  Ingraham  saw  in  Koszta  a  man—z,  kidnapped 
and  oppressed  man—and,  therefore,  he  determined  to 


38  THANKS  TO   CAPTAIN   INGRAHAM. 

set  him  free.  The  manhood  of  Koszta  was  all  the 
warrant  that  Captain  Ingraham  needed  to  demand  the 
liberty  of  Koszta.  Captain  Ingraham's  sympathies  aro 
not  bounded  by  State  or  National  lines.  They  are  not 
controlled  by  questions  of  nationality  and  citizenship ; 
but  where  he  sees  his  brother  kidnapped  or  outraged, 
thither  does  he  let  his  sympathies  go  out  effectively  for 
the  deliverance  of  such  brother. 

I  was  glad,  Sir,  to  hear  the  gentleman  from  Pennsyl 
vania,  [Mr.  Chandler,]  in  the  course  of  his  eloquent 
speech,  quote  the  maxim  "Bis  dat  qui  cito  dat,"  (he 
gives  twice  who  gives  quick,)  to  incite  us  to  the  prompt 
passage  of  the  resolutions.  "Well  does  Captain  Ingra 
ham  deserve  the  benefit  of  this  apposite  and  happy 
quotation,  for  he  acted  bravely  and  beautifully  under 
the  inspiration,  if  not  of  another  Latin  maxim,  never 
theless  of  the  sentiment  of  another  Latin  maxim  :  "  Nil 
humani  a  me  alienum"  (nothing  that  concerns  man  is 
foreign  to  me.)  Yes,  Captain  Ingraham  honored  this 
sublime  maxim,  which  was  coined  by  a  slave  ;  for 
.Terence,  its  high-souled  author,  was  a  Eoman  slave. 

Pass  these  resolutions,  Mr.  Speaker — pass  them 
promptly  and  unanimously.  By  doing  so  we  shall 
honor  humanity  and  honor  ourselves ;  by  doing  so  we 
shall  rebuke  our  Government  for  having  taken,  three 
years  ago,  the  diabolical  position,  that  they  who  rescue 
'their  kidnapped,  and  oppressed,  and  outraged,  and 
crushed  brethren,  merit,  at  the  hands  of  this  Govern- 


THANKS  TO  CAPTAIN  INGEAHAM.  39 

ment,  fines  and  imprisonment.  Pass  these  resolutions, 
and  you  will  put  the  seal  of  your  emphatic  condemna 
tion  on  that  diabolical  position  ;  and  you  will  cheer  the 
hearts  of  those  who  have  rescued  such  poor  brethren, 
and  of  others  who  are  determined  to  rescue  them  when 
ever  they  can  get  the  opportunity  to  do  so.  Pass  these 
resolutions ;  and  these  past  and  these  future  rescuers  of 
the  most  wronged  of  all  men  will  rejoice  in  knowing, 
that  upon  the  principle  of  these  resolutions,  and  upon 
the  principle  by  which  some  on  this  floor  have  advo 
cated  them,  they  are  entitled,  not  to  surfer  fines  and 
imprisonment,  but  to  receive  gold  medals. 


KESOLUTIONS 


ON  THE 


PUBLIC       LANDS. 

JANUARY        16,        1854.. 

MR.  SMITH,  of  New- York.  I  beg  leave  to  offer  the 
following  resolutions. 

The  Clerk  read  the  resolutions,  as  follows : 

Whereas,  all  the  members  of  the  human  family,  not 
withstanding  all  contrary  enactments  and  arrangements, 
have  at  all  times,  and  in  all  circumstances,  as  equal  a 
right  to  the  soil  as  to  the  light  and  air,  because  as  equal 
a  natural  need  of  the  one  as  of  the  other ;  And  where 
as,  this  invariably  equal  right  to  the  soil  leaves  no 
room  to  buy,  or  sell,  or  give  it  away  ;  Therefore, 

1.  Resolved,  That  no  bill  or  proposition  should  find 
any  favor  with  Congress,  which  implies  the  right  of 
Congress  to  dispose  of  the  public  lands  or  any  part  of 
them,  either  by  sale  or  gift. 


42  RESOLUTIONS  ON  THE   PUBLIC   LANDS. 

2.  Resolved,  That  the  duty  of  civil  government  in 
regard  to  public  lands,  and  indeed  to  all  lands,  is  but 
to  regulate  the  occupation  of  them  ;  and  that  this  regu 
lation  should  ever  proceed  upon  the  principle  that  the 
right  of  all  persons  to  the  soil — to  the  great  source  of 
human  subsistence — is  as  equal,  as  inherent,  and  as 
sacred,  as  the  right  to  life  itself. 

3.  Resolved,  That  Government  will  have  done  but 
little  toward  securing  the  equal  right  to  land,  until  it 
shall  have  made  essential  to  the  validity  of  every  claim 
to  land  both  the  fact  that  it  is  actually  possessed,  and 
the  fact  that  it  does  not  exceed  in  quantity  the  maxi 
mum  which  it  is  the  duty  of  Government  to  prescribe. 

4.  Resolved,  That  it  is  not  because  land  monopoly 
is  the  most  efficient  cause  of  inordinate  and  tyrannical 
riches  on  the  one  hand,  and  of  dependent  and  abject 
poverty  on  the  other ;  and  that  it  is  not  because  it  is, 
therefore,  the  most  efficient  cause  of  that  inequality  of 
condition  so  well-nigh  fatal  to  the  spread  of  democracy 
and  Christianity,  that  Government  is  called  upon  to 
abolish  it ;  but  it  is  because  the  right  which  this  mighty 
agent  of  evil  violates  and  tramples  under  foot  is  among 
those  clear,  certain,  essential,  natural  rights  which  it  is 
the  province  of  Government  to  protect  at  all  hazards, 
and  irrespective  of  all  consequences. 

Mr.  HIBBARD.     I  move  that  the  resolutions  be  laid 
upon  the  table. 


RESOLUTIONS   ON   THE   PUBLIC   LANDS.  43 

Mr.  GIDDINGS.  I  call  for  the  yeas  and  nays  on  that 
motion. 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  not  ordered. 

The  question  was  then  put  on  the  motion  to  lay  the 
resolutions  on  the  table,  and  it  was  agreed  to. 


SPEECH 


0  N 


WAR. 

JANUARY       18,       1854. 

ME.  HOUSTON,  of  Alabama.  I  now  call  up  the  bills, 
which  were  reported  from  the  Committee  of  the  "Whole 
on  the  State  of  the  Union,  with  a  recommendation,  that 
they  do  pass,  and  which  were  under  consideration  when 
the  House  adjourned,  last  evening. 

The  House  then  took  up  "the  bill  making  appro 
priation  for  the  support  of  the  Military  Academy  for 
the  year  ending  June  30,  1855. 

Mr.  SMITH.  I  propose,  Mr.  Speaker,  to  make  some 
remarks  on  this  bill. 

Mr.  JONES,  of  Tennessee.  I  think  that  the  previous 
question  was  called  on  the  bill,  last  evening. 

Mr.  SMITH.    I  think  not. 

Mr.  CLINGMAN,  of  North-Carolina.  If  the  previous 
question  was  called,  I  object  to  the  gentleman's  pro 
ceeding  to  make  any  remarks. 


46  SPEECH   ON  WAR. 

Mr.  SPEAKEK.  The  Clerk  informed  the  Chair, '  that 
the  previous  question  was  not  called,  last  evening. 

Mr.  JONES.  It  was  my  impression,  that  it  was 
called. 

Mr.  SMITH.  I  believe,  Sir,  in  the  progress  of  the 
human  race.  I  delight  to  dwell  upon  the  idea  of 
an  ever-growing  civilization.  Hence  it  is,  that  I  am 
afflicted  at  every  demonstration  of  the  war  spirit.  For 
the  spirit  of  war,  is  the  spirit  of  barbarism;  and, 
notwithstanding  the  general  impression  to  the  contrary, 
war  is  the  mightiest  of  all  the  hindrances  to  the 
progress  of  civilization.  But  the  spirit  of  this  bill 
is  the  dark,  barbarous,  baleful  spirit  of  war ;  and, 
therefore,  would  I  use  all  honorable  means  to  defeat 
the  bill. 

It  is  strange — it  is  sad — that,  in  a  nation,  professing 
faith  in  the  Prince  of  Peace,  the  war  spirit  should  be 
so  rampant.  That,  in  such  a  nation,  there  should  be 
any  manifestation  whatever  of  this  spirit,  is  grossly  in 
consistent. 

"  My  voice  is  still  for  war,"  are  words  ascribed  to  a 
celebrated  Eoman.  But  as  he  was  a  pagan,  and  lived 
more  than  two  thousand  years  ago,  it  is  not  strange, 
that  he  was  for  war.  But,  that  we,  who  have  a  more 
than  two  thousand  years'  longer  retrospect  of  the  hor 
rors  of  war  than  he  had — that  we,  who,  instead  of  but 
a  pagan  sense  of  right  and  wrong,  have,  or,  at  least, 


SPEECH   ON  WAR.  47 

have  the  means  of  having,  a  Christian  sense  of  right 
and  wrong— that  we  should  be  for  war,  is,  indeed,  pass 
ing  strange. 

How  vast,  incomprehensibly  vast,  the  loss  of  life  by 
war  !  There  are  various  estimates  of  this  loss. 

Mr.  ORE,  of  South-Carolina.  I  rise  to  a  question  of 
order. 

Mr.  SMITH.  I  mean  to  keep  myself  strictly  in  or 
der. 

Mr.  SPEAKER.  The  gentleman  will  state  his  ques 
tion  of  order. 

Mr.  ORR.  I  understand,  that  the  bill  on  which  the 
gentleman  from  New- York  [Mr.  Smith]  is  submitting 
his  remarks,  is  a  bill  making  an  appropriation  to  sup 
port  the  Military  Academy.  I  submit  that  the  rule  of 
the  House  requires,  that  the  gentleman  shall  confine 
himself  to  the  subject-matter  before  the  House.  The 
gentleman  has  not  been  confining  himself  to  the  sub 
ject-matter,  and  I  require  the  Speaker  to  decide  be 
tween  us. 

Mr.  SMITH.  If  the  gentleman  denies,  that  the  Mili 
tary  Academy  has  to  do  with  war,  then  I  appeal  to  the 
Speaker  what  would  become  of  the  Military  Academy, 
were  war  to  be  abandoned  ? 

Mr.  SPEAKER.  The  Chair  understands,  that  the 
gentleman  from  New- York  [Mr.  Smith]  is  opposing 
the  appropriation  of  money  for  the  maintenance  of  the 


4:8  .  SPEECH  ON  WAR. 

Military  Academy,  on  the  ground,  that  war  is  to  be 
condemned. 

Mr.  SMITH.  Certainly,  Sir ;  and,  therefore,  beyond 
all  doubt,  I  am  in  order. 

The  SPEAKER.  The  Chair  is  of  opinion,  that  the 
gentleman  from  New- York  is  in  order. 

Mr.  SMITH.  I  presumed,  that  the  Speaker  would  so 
decide. 

I  was  saying,  Sir,  when  interrupted  by  the  gentle 
man  from  South-Carolina,  [Mr.  Orr,]  that  there  are 
various  estimates  of  the  loss  of  life  by  war.  Burke's 
estimate,  if  my  recollection  is  right,  is,  that  thirty-five 
thousand  millions  of  persons  have  perished  by  war ; 
that  is,  some  thirty-five  times  as  many  as  the  whole 
present  population  of  the  earth.  In  Bible  language  : 
"  Who  slew  all  these  ?"  "War  slew  them.  And,  when 
contemplating  this  vast  slaughter,  how  natural  to  in 
quire,  in  other  words  of  that  blessed  book,  "  Shall  the 
sword  devour  for  ever  ?" 

And  how  immense  the  loss  of  property  by  war! 
The  annual  cost  of  the  war  system  to  Europe  alone,  in 
cluding  interest  on  her  war  debt,  exceeds  a  thousand 
millions  of  dollars.  The  Government  of  our  own  nation 
has  expended,  on  account  of  the  army  and  fortifications, 
more  than  five  hundred  millions  of  dollars  ;  and,  on  ac 
count  of  the  navy  and  its  operations,  more  than  half 
that  sum.  But  to  ascertain  the  whole  loss  of  property, 
which  this  nation  has  suffered  by  war,  we  must  take 


SPEECH   ON   WAR.  49 

into  the  reckoning  many  other  items ;  and,  especially 
the  cost  of  the  militia.  Now,  this  last  item,  not  accord 
ing  to  mere  conjecture,  but  according  to  the  computa 
tion  of  those  capable  of  making  it,  is  fifteen  hundred 
millions  of  dollars.  Add,  then,  to  what  our  nation  has 
paid  for  war,  and  to  her  loss  of  property  by  war,  the 
interest  on  these  payments  and  losses,  and  you  have  an 
aggregate  equalling  a  large  share  of  the  whole  present 
wealth  of  the  nation. 

And,  just  here,  Sir,  I  would  say  a  few  words  on  na 
tional  debts.  As  such  debts  are,  in  the  main,  war 
debts,  there  can  be  no  assignable  limit  to  their  accumu 
lation,  so  long  as  war  is  thought  to  be  necessary — for, 
so  long,  there  will  be  wars — and,  until  war  is  abandon 
ed,  it  will  be  held  to  be  unjust  and  dishonorable  to  re 
pudiate  war  debts,  no  matter  how  crushing,  and  increas 
ingly  crushing,  from  age  to  age,  may  be  the  burden  of 
such  debts.  So  commanding  is  the  influence  of  war, 
and  so  world- wide  and  mighty  the  sentiment,  which  it 
has  been  able  to  create  in  favor  of  itself,  that  no  debts 
are  deemed  more  sacred  and  obligatory  than  war  debts. 
And  yet,  so  far  from  such  debts  being,  in  truth,  sacred 
and  obligatory,  there  is  the  most  urgent  and  imperative 
duty  to  repudiate  them.  No  doctrine  should  be  more 
indignantly  scouted  than  the  doctrine,  that  one  genera 
tion  may  anticipate  and  waste  the  earnings  and  wealth 
of  another  generation.  Nothing  is  plainer  than  that 
the  great  impartial  Father  of  us  all  would  have  every 
generation  enter  upon  its  course,  unmortgaged  and 
3 


50  SPEECH  ON  WAE. 

unloaded  by  prior  generations.  Nothing  is  plainer 
than  that  in  those  States  of  Europe,  where  the  war  debt 
is  so  great,  that  the  very  life-blood  of  the  masses  must 
be  squeezed  out  to  pay  the  annual  interest  upon  it,  re 
pudiation  must  take  place,  ere  those  masses  can  rise 
into  even  a  tolerable  existence.  It  is  a  very  common 
remark,  at  the  present  time,  that  Europe  needs  a  revo 
lution.  She  does  need  a  revolution.  But  she  needs 
repudiation  more.  However,  there  never  will  be  a  de 
cided  and  wholesome  revolution  in  Europe,  that  does 
not  involve  repudiation.  If  a  people,  on  whom  the 
wars  and  crimes  of  past  generations  have  entailed  an 
overwhelming  burden  of  debt,  shall  achieve  a  revolu 
tion,  of  which  repudiation  is  not  a  part,  their  labor  and 
sacrifice  will  be  lost — their  revolution  will  be  spurious 
and  vain.  To  say,  that  the  people  of  England  and  Hol 
land,  where  the  war  debt  is  so  great,  as  to  make  the 
average  share  of  each  one  of  them,  both  children  and 
adults,  between  two  and  three  hundred  dollars — 

Mr.  OEE,  (interrupting.)  I  rise  to  a  question  of  order. 
I  desire  to  know  whether  the  point,  which  the  gentle 
man  is  now  making,  about  the  debts  of  England  and 
Holland,  is  in  order. 

SEVEKAL  MEMBERS.     "  Certainly !"  "  Certainly  !" 
Mr.  SMITH.     I  am  insisting,  that,  where  war  is  car 
ried  on,  there  will  be  war  debts ;  and  that  where  there 
are  war  debts,  there  will  be  the  temptation,  (and  a  tempt 
ation,  which  should  be  yielded  to,)  to  repudiate  them. 


SPEECH   ON   WAR.  51 

The  SPEAKER.  The  bill  before  the  House  is  to  meet 
the  expenses  of  the  West  Point  Military  Academy, 
The  gentleman  from  New-York  is  disposed  to  strangle, 
if  I  may  use  the  expression,  the  supplies  for  that  pur 
pose.  The  bill  brings  up  the  whole  character  of  the 
thing,  as  connected  with  war  matters.  The  Chair  de 
cides,  that  the  gentleman's  remarks  are  in  order. 

Mr.  SMITH,  (resuming.)  I  was  about  to  say,  when 
interrupted,  that  it  is  absurd  to  claim,  that  the  people 
of  England  and  Holland  are  morally  bound  to  continue 
to  dig  from  the  earth,  and  to  produce  by  other  forms  of 
toil,  the  means  for  paying  the  interest  on  their  enor 
mous  war  debt.  They  are  morally  bound  to  refuse  to 
pay  both  interest  and  principal.  They  are  morally  bound 
to  break  loose  from  this  load,  and  drag  it  no  longer.  For, 
so  long  as  they  drag  it,  they  cannot  exercise  the  rights 
of  manhood,  nor  enjoy  the  blessings,  nor  fulfill  the  high 
purposes,  of  human  existence.  Is  it  said,  that  the  Gov 
ernment,  for  whose  wars  they  are  now  paying,  would 
have  been  overthrown,  but  for  these  wars  ?  I  answer, 
that  the  Government,  which  involved  its  subjects  in 
those  wars,  was  the  greatest  curse  of  those  subjects, 
and  is  the  greatest  curse  of  their  successors.  The  main 
tenance  of  such  a  Government  is  loss.  Its  overthrow 
is  gain. 

I  do  not  deny,  that  the  case  is  possible,  in  which  a 
generation  would  be  morally  bound  to  assume  the  debt 
created  by  its  predecessor.  But,  even  then,  such  gene- 


52  SPEECH  ON   WAK. 

ration  should  be  the  sole  judge  of  its  obligation  to  as 
sume  the  debt.  Were  the  cholera  raging  over  the  whole 
length  and  breadth  of  our  land,  and  sweeping  off  mil 
lions  of  our  people ;  and  were  a  foreign  nation  to  min 
ister  to  our  relief  by  lending  us  money ;  if  we  could  not 
repay  the  loan,  our  successors  should :  and  such  a  loan 
they  would  be  glad  to  repay. 

I  would  incidentally  remark,  that  Civil  Government 
will  be  neither  honest  nor  frugal,  so  long  as  the  practice 
of  war  is  continued.  I  say  so  for  the  reason,  that  the 
extensive  means  necessary  to  carry  on  wars,  or  pay  war 
debts,  cannot  be  obtained  by  direct  taxation.  The  peo 
ple  will  consent  to  their  being  obtained  only  by  indi 
rect  taxation :  and  110  Government  ever  was,  or  ever 
will  be,  either  honest  or  frugal,  whose  expenses  are  de 
frayed  by  indirect  taxation,  for  no  Government,  whose 
expenses  are  thus  defrayed,  ever  was  or  ever  will  be, 
held  to  a  strict  responsibility  by  the  people ;  and  no 
Government,  not  held  to  such  responsibility,  ever  was, 
or  ever  will  be,  either  honest  or  frugal. 

I  have  referred  to  the  loss  of  life  and  property  by 
war — of  life,  that  is  so  precious — of  property,  that  is  so 
indispensable  to  the  enjoyment  and  usefulness  of  life. 
But  there  is  an  unspeakably  greater  loss  than  this,  with 
which  war  is  also  chargeable.  I  refer  to  the  damage, 
which  morals  and  religion  suffer  from  it.  All  I  need 
add,  on  this  point,  is,  that  the  power  of  war  to  demo 
ralize  the  world,  and  to  corrupt  the  purest  religion  in 


SPEECH   ON   WAR.  53 

the  world,  is  abundantly  manifest  in  the  fact,  that  the 
moral  and  religious  sense  of  even  good  men  is  not 
shocked  by  war.  No  stronger  argument  can  be  brought 
against  war  than  the  fact  of  its  power  to  conform  the 
morals  and  religion  of  the  world  to  war. 

It  would,  perhaps,  be  wrong  to  ascribe  the  continu 
ance  of  war  to  the  low  and  perverted  state  of  the  moral 
and  religious  sense.  It  would,  perhaps,  be  more  proper 
to  ascribe  it  to  the  prevailing  delusion,-  that  war  is  una 
voidable.  And,  yet,  it  may  be,  that  a  better  state  of 
the  moral  and  religious  sense  would  have  entirely  pre 
vented  this  delusion.  But,  however  this  delusion  may 
be  accounted  for,  or  whatever  may  be  responsible  for 
it,  it  is  consoling  to  know,  that  it  is  not  so  well  nigh 
impossible  to  dispel  it,  as  is  generally  supposed.  A 
fresh  baptism  of  wisdom  and  goodness  may,  perhaps,  be 
needed  to  that  end :  but  no  new  faculties,  and  not  a  new 
birth.  Nay,  were  we  to  apply  to  the  subject  of  war  no 
more  than  our  present  stock  of  good  sense  and  good 
feeling — no  more  than  our  mental  and  moral  faculties, 
as  they  now  are — it  is  probable,  that  war  could  not 
long  withstand  the  application. 

The  doctrine,  that  war  is  a  necessity,  is  the  greatest 
of  all  libels  on  man.  The  confidence,  which,  in  private 
life,  we  manifest  in  each  other,  proves,  that  it  is  such  a 
libel.  We  walk  the  streets  unarmed.  We  go  to  bed 
without  fear,  and  with  unlocked  doors ;  and  we  thus 
prove,  that  we  regard  our  fellow-men  as  our  friends,  and 
not  our  foes — as  disposed  to  protect,  and  not  to  harm 


54  SPEECH  ON  WAR. 

us.  It  is  true,  that  there  is,  here  and  there,  one,  that 
would  rob  us ;  and,  at  very  far  wider  intervals,  one, 
that  would  kill  us.  But  we  are  at  rest  in  the  con 
sciousness,  that,  where  there  is  one  to  assail  us,  there  are 
a  hundred  to  defend  us.  Indeed,  society  could  not  be 
held  together,  were  it  not  true,  that  the  generality  of 
men  are  swayed  by  love,  and  confidence,  and  generos 
ity,  existing  either  in  their  own  hearts,  or  accorded  by 
them  to  others.  The  men,  who  are  swayed  by  distrust 
and  hatred,  constitute  the  exceptional  cases. 

Have  I,  then,  an  evil-minded  neighbor?  I,  never 
theless,  need  not  fight  with  him.  I  may  rely,  under 
Grod,  upon  the  mass  of  my  neighbors  to  protect  me 
against  him.  So,  too,  if  there  is,  here  and  there,  a  mali 
cious  American,  and,  here  and  there,  a  malicious 
Englishman,  who  would  be  guilty  of  involving  their 
countries  in  a  war  with  each  other;  nevertheless, 
the  mass  of  Americans  and  Englishmen,  inasmuch  as 
they  prefer  international  amity  to  international  quar 
rels,  should  be  relied  on  to  preserve  peace :  and  they 
would  preserve  it,  if  so  relied  on.  Now,  it  is  in  this 
point  of  view,  that  the  nation,  which  is  determined  to 
keep  out  of  war,  will  never  find  itself  involved  in  war  • 
and  that  nothing  is  hazarded  by  adopting  the  peace 
policy.  I  add,  that,  as  it  is  not  in  human  nature,  under 
its  ordinary  influences,  and  in  its  ordinary  circumstances 
to  fall  upon  an  unarmed  and  unresisting  man,  so  the 
nation,  which  puts  its  trust,  not  in  weapons  of  war,  but 
in  the  fraternal  affections  of  the  human  heart,  and  in 


SPEECH   ON   WAR.  55 

the  Grod,  who  planted  those  affections  there,  will  find 
this  trust  an  effectual  shield  from  the  horrors  of  war. 
Such  a  shield  did  the  good  men,  who  founded  Pennsyl 
vania,  find  this  trust.  During  the  seventy  years  of  this 
trust,  there  was  no  blood  shed  in  their  Province.  These 
good  men  subdued  even  the  savage  heart,  simply  b}^ 
trusting  that  heart.  These  good  men,  by  refusing  to 
carry  deadly  weapons  themselves,  shamed  even  savages 
out  of  carrying  them.  And  were  America,  now,  to  dis 
arm  herself,  even  to  the  extent  of  abandoning  the  policy 
and  practice  of  war,  and  were  she  to  cast  herself  for  pro 
tection  on  the  world's  heart,  she  would  find  that  heart 
worthy  of  being  so  trusted.  The  other  nations  of  the 
earth  would  not  only  be  ashamed  to  take  advantage  of 
her  disarmament,  but  they  would  love  their  confiding 
sister  too  well  to  do  so.  Nay,  more.  Instead  of  mak 
ing  her  exposed  condition  an  occasion  for  their  malevo 
lence,  they  would  be  moved  to  reciprocate  the  confi 
dence  expressed  by  that  condition,  and  to  disarm  them 
selves. 

I  have  already  admitted,  that  there  are  persons,  who 
would  wrong  us — who  would  even  plunder  and  kill  us. 
I  now  admit,  that  Government  is  bound  to  provide 
against  them.  If,  on  the  one  hand,  I  protest  against 
stamping  the  masses  with  the  desperate  character  of 
these  rare  individuals,  on  the  other,  I  admit,  that  we 
are  to  guard  against  these  rare  individuals.  But  to 
argue,  that,  because  of  the  existence  of  these  rare  indi 
viduals  in  France,  or  England,  or  any  other  nation, 


56  SPEECH   OX   WAK. 

the  nation  itself  is  necessarily  disposed  to  make  war 
upon  us,  is  to  make  the  exceptions  to  the  rule,  instead 
of  the  rule  itself,  the  basis  of  the  argument. 

Whilst,  for  the  reason,  that  I  believe,  that  there  is 
no  need  of  war,  I  believe  there  is  no  need  of  making 
preparation  against  it,  I,  nevertheless,  admit,  that  there 
is  need  of  Government,  of  prisons,  and  of  an  armed 
police.  Whilst  I  hold,  that  a  nation  whose  Govern 
ment  is  just  in  all  its  dealings  with  its  own  subjects, 
and  with  foreigners,  and  which  so  far  confides  in,  and 
honors,  human  nature,  as  to  trust,  that  even  nations 
are  capable  of  the  reciprocations  of  justice — ay,  and 
the  reciprocations  of  love,  also — I  say,  whilst  I  hold, 
that  such  a  nation  needs  to  make  no  provision  against 
war,  I  still  admit,  that  it  is  bound,  in  common  with 
every  other  nation,  to  have  ever  in  readiness,  both  on 
sea  and  land,  a  considerable  armed  force,  to  be  wielded, 
as  occasions  may  require,  against  the  hostes  Tiumani 
generis — the  enemies  of  the  human  race — the  pirates, 
that,  both  on  land  and  sea,  "  lurk  privily  for  the  inno 
cent  prey." 

But  what  shall  be  the  character — the  intellectual  and 
moral  character — of  the  men  proper  to  compose  this 
armed  force  ?  No  other  question  in  this  discussion  is 
so  important;  and,  perhaps,  in  the  whole  range  of 
earthly  interests,  there  is  not  a  more  important  ques 
tion.  The  answer,  which  I  shall  give  to  this  question, 
is  a  very  novel  one ;  so  novel,  indeed,  that,  were  I  not 


SPEECH   ON   WAR,  57 

irresistibly  impressed  with  its  truth  and  value,  I  should 
not  venture  to  give  it. 

The  punishment  of  its  own  offending  citizens  is,  con 
fessedly,  regarded  as  being,  in  all  its  stages,  a  most 
solemn  and  responsible  duty.     Laws  to  this  end  are 
enacted  with   considerateness   and  solemnity.      It  is 
claimed,  that  none  but  wise  and  just  men  are  fit  to  en 
act  them.     Judges  and  jurors  are  considerate  and  sol 
emn  in  applying  the  laws ;  and  none,  but  the  upright 
and  intelligent,  are  allowed  to  be  suitable  persons  for 
judges  and  jurors.     All  this  is  indispensable  to  main 
tain  the  moral  influence  and  the  majesty  of  the  laws. 
But  how  fatally  would  this  majesty  be  dishonored,  and 
this  moral  influence  be  broken,  if  all  this  propriety  and 
all  this  consistency  were,  then,  to  be  followed  up  with 
the  gross  impropriety  and  gross  inconsistency  of  com 
mitting  the  execution  of  the  verdict,  or  decree,  of  the 
court-room  to  the  hands  of  the  profligate  and  base. 
Most  clear  is  it,  that  the  turnkey  and  hangman  should 
not  fall  below  the  lawmaker  or  judge,  in  dignity  and 
excellence  of  character.     I  am  aware,  that  it  was  once 
thought,  that  the  vilest  man  in  the  community  was  the 
most   appropriate  man  for  hangman.      But   sounder 
thinking  requires,  that  the  hangman,  if  there  must  be 
a  hangman,  should  be  one  of  the  noblest  and  holiest  of 

men. 

Such  is  my  argument— and,  I  trust,  it  is  a  conclusive 
one— in  favor  of  a  solemn  and  dignified  execution  of 


58  SPEECH  ON  WAR. 

the  laws  of  Government  against  its  offending  subjects. 
But  cannot  a  similar,  and  a  no  less  conclusive,  argu 
ment  be  made  in  favor  of  such  an  execution  of  its  laws 
against  foreign  offenders,  also  ?  Most  certainly.  It  is 
admitted,  that  the  greatest  wisdom  and  considerateness 
are  necessary  in  deciding  on  so  solemn  a  measure  as 
war.  But,  just  here,  the  amazing  impropriety,  the 
fatal  inconsistency,  occurs,  of  intrusting  the  execution 
of  the  declaration  of  war  to  those,  who  are,  for  the 
most  part,  profligate  and  base — the  very  scum  and  re 
fuse  of  society.  Not  only  so,  but  it  is  insisted,  and 
that,  too,  by  good  men,  and  by  the  friends  of  peace, 
that  the  profligate  and  base  are  the  peculiarly  fit  per 
sons  to  fill  up  the  ranks  of  the  armies — the  peculiarly 
fit  persons  to  be  "food  for  powder."  They  believe 
with  Napoleon,  that  "the  worse  the  man,  the  better 
the  soldier;"  and  with  Wellington,  that  "the  men, 
who  have  nice  scruples  about  religion,  have  no  business 
to  be  soldiers."  A  sad  mistake,  however,  is  this,  on 
the  part  of  the  good  men  I  have  referred  to.  They 
should  insist,  that  none  but  the  virtuous  and  intelli 
gent  are  fit  to  be  armed  men.  Peace  men  are  wont  to 
complain,  that  war  is  too  much  honored.  But  if  there 
must  be  war,  it  should  be  far  more  honored  than  it  is ; 
and,  to  have  it  so,  none  but  the  intelligent  and  virtuous 
are  to  be  thought  worthy  of  fighting  its  battles.  Of 
such  persons,  and  of  such  only,  would  I  have  the  na 
tional  police  consist :  that  police,  which  is  the  fit  and 


SPEECH  ON  WAR.  59 

needed  substitute  for  war-armies  and  war-navies.  Sure 
ly,  they,  who  man  the  vessel,  that  is  to  go  forth  against 
the  pirates  of  the  ocean,  and  they,  who  take  up  arms 
to  vindicate  defied  justice  on  the  land,  should  be  men 
of  virtue,  and  not  vice — intelligent,  and  not  ignorant. 
The  wicked  and  the  vile  will  not  fail  to  justify  their 
wickedness,  if  it  is  the  wicked  and  the  vile,  who  under 
take  their  punishment.  But  if  wisdom  and  virtue  are 
arrayed  against  them,  there  is  hope,, that  they  may  be 
awed,  or  shamed,  out  of  their  wickedness. 

The  armed  forces  of  the  world  are  looked  upon  as  a 
mere  brute  power.  Composed,  as  I  would  have  them 
composed,  there  would  still  be  an  ample  amount  of 
brute  power  in 'them;  but  there  would,  also,  be  in 
them  the  far  more  important  element  of  moral  power. 
I  say  far  more  important ;  for  disturbers  of  the  peace, 
and  transgressors  of  the  laws,  would,  be  far  more  con 
trolled  by  the  presence  of  the  moral  than  the  presence 
of  the  brute  power.  Indeed,  the  brute  power  itself 
would  then  be  viewed  very  differently  from  what  it 
now  is.  Now,  it  kindles  the  wrath,  and,  oftentimes, 
the  contempt  of  those  against  whom  it  is  arrayed.  But. 
then,  commended,  honored,  sanctified  by  the  moral  in 
fluence,  with  which  it  would  stand  associated,  it  would 
be  respected,  and  submitted  to,  by  many,  who,  but  for 
that  association,  would  despise  and  resist  it.  That  men 
of  conscience  and  virtue  are  respected  and  feared  by 
their  enemies ;  and  that  their  conscience  and  virtue- 
male  their  hearts  none  the  less  courageous  and  their 


60  SPEECH   ON   WAR, 

arms  none  the  less  strong ;  was  well  illustrated  by 
Cromwell's  never-defeated  armies. 

With  my  conceptions  of  the  character  proper  for 
those,  who  are  to  compose  the  armed  police  of  a  nation, 
it  is  not  strange,  that  I,  too,  would  be  in  favor  of  mili 
tary  and  naval  schools ;  and  that  I  would  have  them 
far  more  numerously  attended  than  such  schools  now 
are.  But  the  military  and  naval  schools,  that  I  would 
be  in  favor  of,  would  not  be  an  appendage  of  the  war 
system.  They  would  not  look  to  the  possibility  of 
war :  and,  of  course,  they  would  not  train  their  pupils 
for  war.  Nevertheless,  they  would  train  them  for  the 
most  effective  service  against  the  enemies  of  the  human 
race ;  and  to  this  end  they  would  impart  the  highest 
scientific,  literary,  and  moral  education. 

I  said,  that  I  would  have  none,  but  the  virtuous  and 
intelligent,  for  the  armed  men  of  the  nation.  They 
should  be  gentlemen :  and,  all  the  better,  if  Christians 
and  scholars  also.  They  should  be  among  the  most 
honored  of  men — both  from  their  high  office,  as  con 
servators  of  the  public  safety,  and  from  their  intrinsic 
merits.  But,  alas,  what  a  contrast  between  such  men 
and  the  vast  majority  of  those,  who  compose  the  ar 
mies  of  the  world  !  To  that  vast  majority  Government 
gives  out  grog,  as  swill  is  given  out  to  hogs.  From 
the  backs  of  that  vast  majority  many  statesmen  are  re 
luctant  to  hold  back  the  lash.  Of  course,  I  refer  not 
to  mere  "sentimentalists,"  but  to  those  intellectual  per 
sons,  who,  in  the  esteem  of  the  gentleman  of  Alabama, 


SPEECH  ON  WAR.  61 

are  alone  capable  of  rising  "  into  the  dignity  of  states 
men." 

We,  often,  hear  it  said,  that  the  policeman  of  London 
is  a  gentleman.  He  should  be.  But  if  he,  Yv'ho  is 
charged  with  the  preservation  of  the  peace,  and  safety, 
and  order  of  a  city,  needs  to  be  a  gentleman,  how  much 
more  should  he  be  a  gentleman,  whose  offi.ce  is  to  care, 
in  this  wise,  for  a  nation  and  for  the  world ! 

But,  it  will  be  said,  that  men  of  the  elevated  charac 
ter  with  which  I  would  fill  up  our  armed  forces,  would 
not  be  content  with  the  present  wages  of  the  common 
sailor  and  common  soldier.  It  is  true,  that  they  would 
not ;  and,  that  they  should  not.  Their  wages  should 
be  several  times  greater.  But,  it  must  be  remembered, 
on  the  other  hand,  that  one  of  such  men  would  be 
worth  fifty  of  the  present  kind  of  armed  men  for  pre 
serving  the  world's  peace.  Nay,  the  armed  men  of 
the  world  are  of  a  kind  continually  to  hazard  the  peace 
of  the  world. 

I  said,  that  there  is  no  need  of  preparing  against 
war.  I  add,  -that  preparation  against  war  provokes  to 
it,  instead  of  preventing  it.  If  England  makes  it,  then 
is  France  provoked  to  a  counter  preparation.  And, 
what  is  not  less,  but  much  more,  each  nation,  having 
made  such  preparation,  is  tempted  to  use  it.  If  these 
nations  line  their  respective  coasts  with  cannon,  it  is 
but  natural,  that  they  should  long  to  try  the  efficiency 
of  their  cannon  on  each  other's  ships.  "  To  what  pur 
pose  is  all  this  waste  ?"  will  be  the  reproa-chful  inquiry, 


62  SPEECH  ON  WAR. 

which  they  will  put  to  themselves,  whilst  they  suffer 
this  vastly  expensive  preparation  to  lie  idle.  If  the 
maxim :  "To  prepare  for  war  is  to  prevent  war,"  were 
ever  true,  it  must  have  been  in  those  remote  ages,  when 
such  preparation  cost  but  little  time  and  money.  It, 
certainly,  is  not  true,  when  much  time  and  scores  of 
millions  are  expended  in  such  preparation. 

But,  to  return  to  the  bill.  I  would,  that  it  might  be 
defeated ;  and  that  the  bill  for  building  vessels-of-war 
might  be  defeated ;  and  that  the  President's  recommen 
dations  for  increasing  the  army  and  navy  might  find 
no  favor.  For  the  legitimate  purposes  of  a  national 
armed  police,  the  army  and  navy  are  already  sufficiently 
large.  What  is  lacking  in  them  is  an  elevation  of 
intellectual  and  moral  character;  and  how  to  supply 
that  lack  I  have  already  indicated. 

But,  it  is  asked:  "  What  shall  we  do  with  the  sur 
plus  money  in  the  Treasury  ?"  I  answer :  "  Use  it  in 
paying  our  debts."  We  owe  many  honest  debts — and 
some  of  them  to  persons,  who  are  suffering  for  the  pay 
ment  of  them.  We  shall  be,  altogether,  without  ex 
cuse,  if,  when  our  Treasury  is  overflowing,  we  do  not 
pay  them ;  but,  instead  thereof,  indulge  a  mad  war 
passion  in  building  ships,  and  in  making  other  war 
preparations.  Eemember,  too,  that  the  debt,  which  we 
incurred  in  our  superlatively  mean  and  wicked  war 
with  Mexico  is  not  all  paid.  I  hope,  that  we  shall  pay 
it ;  and  not  leave  it  to  posterity  to  be  obliged  to  pay 
it,  or  repudiate  it.  But  it  may  also  be  asked  :  "  What 


SPEECH  ON  WAR.  63 

shall  we  do  with  the  future  surplus  money  in  the  Trea 
sury?"  I  answer:  "Have  none."  We  should  have 
none,  either  by  adopting  free  trade,  or  by  doing  what 
is  the  next  best  thing — raising  the  tariff  to  the  level 
of  a  full  protection.  The  mixture  of  free  trade  and 
protection  is  a  miserable  compound.  But  it  may  also 
be  asked :  "  What  shall  we  then  do  for  means  to  carry 
on  the  Government  ?"  I  answer,  that,  when  we  shall 
no  longer  have  war  to  support,  and  are  weaned  from 
the  extravagances  and  follies,  which  are  cherished  and 
begotten  by  that  dazzling  and  bewitching  and  befool 
ing  barbarism,  it  will  not  cost  more  than  one  tenth  as 
much,  as  it  now  does,  to  defray  the  cost  of  administer 
ing  Government;  and  that  tenth  the  people  will  be 
willing  to  be  directly  taxed  for. 

But  I  have  consumed  the  most  of  my  hour,  and 
must  close.  Do  not  pa$s  any  of  these  war  bills.  Do 
not  so  cruel,  so  foolish,  so  wicked  a  thing.  Cruel  it 
will  be  to  the  poor,  who  will  have  to  pay  these  mil 
lions  of  fresh  taxes ;  for,  remember,  Sir,  that  it  is  they, 
who  have  to  pay  them.  The  toiling  poor  are  the  only 
creators  of  wealth.  Such  as  ourselves  are  but  the  con 
duits  of  wealth.  Foolish  it  will  be,  because  the  more 
you  expend  in  this  wise,  the  more  will  it  be  felt 
necessary  to  expend ;  and  because  the  more  you  seek 
to  protect  your  country  in  this  wise,  the  less  will  she 
be  protected.  Wicked  it  will  be,  because  war,  in  all 
its  phases,  is  one  of  the  most  horrid  crimes  against  God 
and  man. 


62  SPEECH  ON  WAR. 

which  they  will  put  to  themselves,  whilst  they  suffer 
this  vastly  expensive  preparation  to  lie  idle.  If  the 
maxim :  "To  prepare  for  war  is  to  prevent  war,"  were 
ever  true,  it  must  have  been  in  those  remote  ages,  when 
such  preparation  cost  but  little  time  and  money.  It, 
certainly,  is  not  true,  when  much  time  and  scores  of 
millions  are  expended  in  such  preparation. 

But,  to  return  to  the  bill.  I  would,  that  it  might  be 
defeated ;  and  that  the  bill  for  building  vessels-of-war 
might  be  defeated ;  and  that  the  President's  recommen 
dations  for  increasing  the  army  and  navy  might  find 
no  favor.  For  the  legitimate  purposes  of  a  national 
armed  police,  the  army  and  navy  are  already  sufficiently 
large.  What  is  lacking  in  them  is  an  elevation  of 
intellectual  and  moral  character;  and  how  to  supply 
that  lack  I  have  already  indicated. 

But,  it  is  asked:  "  What  shall  we  do  with  the  sur 
plus  money  in  the  Treasury  ?"  I  answer  :  "  Use  it  in 
paying  our  debts."  We  owe  many  honest  debts — and 
some  of  them  to  persons,  who  are  suffering  for  the  pay 
ment  of  them.  We  shall  be,  altogether,  without  ex 
cuse,  if,  when  our  Treasury  is  overflowing,  we  do  not 
pay  them ;  but,  instead  thereof,  indulge  a  mad  war 
passion  in  building  ships,  and  in  making  other  war 
preparations.  Eemember,  too,  that  the  debt,  which  we 
incurred  in  our  superlatively  mean  and  wicked  war 
with  Mexico  is  not  all  paid.  I  hope,  that  we  shall  pay 
it ;  and  not  leave  it  to  posterity  to  be  obliged  to  pay 
it,  or  repudiate  it.  But  it  may  also  be  asked :  "  What 


SPEECH  ON  WAK.  68 

shall  we  do  with,  the  future  surplus  money  in  the  Trea 
sury?"  I  answer:  "Have  none."  "We  should  have 
none,  either  by  adopting  free  trade,  or  by  doing  what 
is  the  next  best  thing — raising  the  tariff  to  the  level 
of  a  full  protection.  The  mixture  of  free  trade  and 
protection  is  a  miserable  compound.  But  it  may  also 
be  asked :  "  What  shall  we  then  do  for  means  to  carry 
on  the  Government  ?"  I  answer,  that,  when  we  shall 
no  longer  have  war  to  support,  and  are  weaned  from 
the  extravagances  and  follies,  which  are  cherished  and 
begotten  by  that  dazzling  and  bewitching  and  befool 
ing  barbarism,  it  will  not  cost  more  than  one  tenth  as 
much,  as  it  now  does,  to  defray  the  cost  of  administer 
ing  Government ;  and  that  tenth  the  people  will  be 
willing  to  be  directly  taxed  for. 

But  I  have  consumed  the  most  of  my  hour,  and 
must  close.  Do  not  pa^s  any  of  these  war  bills.  Do 
not  so  cruel,  so  foolish,  so  wicked  a  thing.  Cruel  it 
will  be  to  the  poor,  who  will  have  to  pay  these  mil 
lions  of  fresh  taxes  ;  for,  remember,  Sir,  that  it  is  they, 
who  have  to  pay  them.  The  toiling  poor  are  the  only 
creators  of  wealth.  Such  as  ourselves  are  but  the  con 
duits  of  wealth.  Foolish  it  will  be,  because  the  more 
you  expend  in  this  wise,  the  more  will  it  be  felt 
necessary  to  expend ;  and  because  the  more  you  seek 
to  protect  your  country  in  this  wise,  the  less  will  she 
be  protected.  Wicked  it  will  be,  because  war,  in  all 
its  phases,  is  one  of  the  most  horrid  crimes  against  God 
and  man. 


66  SPEECH  ON  WAR. 

that  great  desideratum  of  the  world.  Would  that  our 
country  might  participate  most  promptly  and  most 
largely  in  the  glory  of  achieving  that  desideratum  1 
We  have  already,  the  village  court,  and  the  county 
court,  and  the  district  court,  and  the  state  court,  and 
the  national  court;  and,  were  it  proposed  to  abolish 
one  of  these  courts,  and  to  let  differences  between  men 
take  their  own  course,  and  run  into  violence  and  blood 
shed,  such  proposition  would  be  regarded  as  a  proposi 
tion  to  return  to  barbarism.  But,  Sir,  I  trust,  that  the 
day  is  near  at  hand,  when  it  will  be  thought  to  be  bar 
barous  not  to  have  an  international  court. 

Sir,  I  have  done.  Eapidly,  very  rapidly,  has  the 
world  advanced  in  civilization,  the  last  forty  years. 
The  great  reason  why  it  has,  is,  that,  during  this  peri 
od,  it  has  been  comparatively  exempt  from  the  curse 
of  war.  Let  the  world  continue  to  advance  thus  rapid 
ly  in  civilization ;  and  let  our  nation  continue  to  ad 
vance  with  it.  During  these  forty  years,  our  nation 
has  generally  gone  forward  in  the  cause  of  peace.  In 
its  war  with  Mexico,  it  took  a  wide  step  backward. 
Grod  grant  that  it  may  never  take  another  step  back 
ward,  in  this  cause  !  Grod  grant,  that,  in  respect  to  this 
dear  and  sacred  cause,  our  nation  may  adopt  the  motto 
on  one  side  of  the  standard  of  the  immortal  Hampden : 
u Nulla  vestigia  retrorsum" — no  steps  backward:  and, 
having  done  this,  it  will  have  good  ground  to  hope  for 
its  realization  of  the  blessing  of  the  motto  on  the  other 
side  of  that  patriot's  standard:  "  God  with  us." 


SPEECH   ON   WAK.  67 

Pass  these  war  bills,  Sir,  and  carry  out  the  Presi 
dent's  recommendations,  and  you  will  contribute  to 
roll  along  that  deep  and  broad  stream  of  sin  and  sor 
row,  which  war  has  rolled  down  through  every  age  of 
the  world.  But  defeat  these  bills,  and  frown  upon 
these  recommendations,  and  there  will  be  joy  on  earth, 
and  joy  in  heaven. 


SPEECH 


ON   THE 


DISTRIBUTION  OF  SEEDS  BY  GOVERNMENT. 


FEBRUARY     7,     1854 


THE  Deficiency  Bill  was  under  discussion.  Mr. 
Clark,  of  Michigan,  had  moved  an  amendment,  to  ex 
pend  ten  thousand  dollars  in  the  purchase  of  seeds, 
etc.,  and  Mr.  Chamberlain,  of  Indiana,  had  moved  to 
increase  the  sum  to  twenty  thousand  dollars.  Mr. 
Smith  said : 

I  do  not  deny  that  the  mutual- exchange  of  the  seeds 
of  different  countries  is  beneficial  to  the  farming  inter 
est.  Perhaps  a  similar  exchange  of  specimens  of  cloth 
might  help  the  mercantile  and  manufacturing  interests. 
Perhaps  a  similar  exchange  of  mechanical  tools  might 
be  useful  to  mechanics.  But  the  material  question  is, 
whether  individuals  shall  make  these  exchanges,  or  whe 
ther  Government  shall  be  the  agent  to  negotiate  them? 


70        DISTRIBUTION  OF  SEEDS  BY"   GOVERNMENT. 

In  my  opinion,  Government  violates  its  office,  and 
transcends  its  province,  in  concerning  itself  with  such 
things.  Its  sole,  legitimate  office  is  to  protect  the  per 
sons  and  property  of  its  subjects.  Leave  it  within  its 
province,  and  it  will  hardly  fail  to  do  its  work  well. 
But  allow  it  to  exceed  its  province,  and  it  will  hardly 
fail  to  do  all  its  work  ill.  Its  usurpation  of  the  work 
of  the  people  has  done  more  than  any  thing  else  to 
make  Government  a  burden  upon  the  people  instead  of 
a  blessing  to  the  people. 

It  is  true  that  the  sum  which  is  called  for  in  this  case 
is  a  small  one.  But  the  principle  to  be  violated  by 
our  voting  this  sum  is  a  great  one. 

"We  need  to  be  continually  mindful  of  the  true  and 
only  office  of  civil  government.  It  is  to  hold  a  shield 
over  its  subjects,  beneath  which  they  may,  in  safety 
from  foreign  aggressions,  pursue  their  .various  callings. 
It  is,  also,  by  its  ever-present  and  strong  a,rm,  to  re 
strain  its  subjects  from  aggressions  upon  each  other. 

I  trust,  Sir,  that  we  shall  leave  the  people  to  get  their 
•  seeds  for  themselves ;  and  that  we  shall  vote  down  the 
amendment  to  the  amendment,  and  the  amendment 
also. 


SPEECH 

ON  THE 

HOMESTEAD        BILL, 

FEBKUAKY     21,     1854. 

[THE  motto  prefixed  by  Mr.  Smith  to  this  speech,  when  it  was  first 
printed,  was  "Homes  for  All."]  - 

THE  House  being  in  the  Committee  of  the  Whole  on 
the  State  of  the  Union,  on  the  Homestead  Bill — 
Mr.  SMITH,  said : 

ME.  CHAIKMAN  :  I  purpose  to  speak  on  the  Home 
stead  Bill.  I  choose  this  bill  for  the  subject  of  my  re 
marks,  not  only  because  it  is  "the  special  order,"  and 
is,  therefore,  entitled  to  preference,  but  because  it  is,  in 
my  judgment,  second  in  importance  to  no  bill^  that  has 
come,  or  that  shall  come,  before  us. 

I  am  in  favor  of  this  bill.  I  do  not  say,  that  there 
is  not  a  line,  nor  a  word,  in  it,  that  I  would  not  have 


72  HOMESTEAD  BILL. 

altered.  But  I  do  say,  that  I  am  in  favor  of  the  sub 
stance  of  it.  I  am  in  favor  of  the  bill,  not  for  the 
reason  that,  by  giving  up  a  part  of  the  public  lands  to 
be  occupied,  the  remainder  will  be  more  valuable  to 
the  Government  than  was  the  whole,  before  such  occu 
pation.  Nor  am  I  in  favor  of  it,  because  the  occupants 
will  afford  new  subjects  for  taxation.  Nor,  in  short, 
am  I  in  favor  of  it  for  any  of  the  current  and  popular 
reasons  for  it.  But  I  am  iri  favor  of  the  bill,  because  I 
am  in  favor  of  what  I  interpret  the  bill  essentially  to 
be — let  others  interpret  it,  as  they  will.  This  bill,  as  I 
view  it,  is  an  acknowledgment,  that  the  public  lands 
belong,  not  to  the  G-overnment,  but  to  the  landless. 

Whilst  I  hope,  that  the  bill  will  prevail,  I  neverthe 
less  can  hardly  hope,  that  a  majority  of  the  Committee 
will  approve  my  reasons  for  it.  Indeed,  if  the  Com 
mittee  shall  so  much  as  tolerate  me,  in  putting  forth 
these  reasons,  it  is  all  I  can  expect,  in  the  light  of  the 
fate  of  the  land  reform  resolutions,  which  I  offered  in 
this  Hall,  the  16th  January  last.  The  storm  of  indig 
nation,  which  burst  upon  those  resolutions,  did,  I  con 
fess,  not  a  little  surprise  me.  The  angry  words,  which 
came  sounding  over  into  this  part  of  the  Hall,  quite 
startled  me.  Even  the  reading  of  the  resolutions  by 
the  Clerk  was  hardly  borne  with  ;  and,  no  sooner  had 
they  been  read,  than,  with  hot  haste,  they  were  nailed 
to  the  table  for  ever  and  ever. 

And  what  are  those  resolutions,  that  they  should 
have  excited  such  displeasure  ?  Why,  their  chief  and 


HOMESTEAD   BILL.  7o 

controlling  doctrine  is,  that  men  have  a  natural  and 
equal  right  to  the  soil.  And  is  this  such  a  monstrous 
doctrine,  as  to  make  me  guilty  of  a  great  offence — of 
an  outrage  on  propriety — for  offering  the  resolutions? 
It  cannot  be  said,  that  they  were  expressed  in  indecent 
or  profane  language — in  language  offensive  to  purity 
or  piety.  "Why,  then,  were  they  so  treated?  I  am 
not  at  liberty  to  suppose,  that  it  was  from  dislike  to 
their  author.  It  must  be  because  their  leading  doctrine 
is  so  very  wrong  in  the  eyes  of  the  honorable  gentle 
men  around  me.  Now  I  am  aware,  that  many  of  the 
doctrines,  which  I  utter  in  this  Hall,  are  very  wrong  in 
their  eyes.  But  should  they  not  remember,  that  their 
counter  doctrines  are  no  less  wrong  in  my  eyes  ?  And 
yet,  I  appeal  to  all,  whether  I  have  ever  evinced  even 
the  slightest  impatience  or  unkindness  under  anything 
I  have  heard  here?  and  whether  the  equal  footing,  on 
which  we  find  ourselves  here,  does  not  require,  as  well 
that  patience  and  kindness  should  be  accorded  to  me, 
as  by  me  ?  However  we  may  regard  each  other  out  of 
this  Hall,  certain  it  is,  that,  if,  in  this  Hall,  we  do  not 
regard  each  other  as  gentlemen  entitled  to  mutual  and 
perfect  respect,  we  shall  dishonor  ourselves,  and  our 
constituency,  and  civil  government  itself. 

I  am  sure,  that  no  member  of  this  body  would  have 
me  disguise,  or  hold  in  abeyance,  my  real  views  on  any 
subject  under  discussion.  I  am  sure,  that  none  of  them 
would  have  me  guilty  of  the  self-degradation  of  affect- 

4 


74  HOMESTEAD  BILL. 

ing,  and  uttering,  other  views,  and  of  studying  an  un 
principled  accommodation  of  myself  to  the  majority 
around  me.  I  am  sure,  that  none  of  them  would  have 
me  consent  to  be 

"A  pipe  for  fortune's  finger, 
To  sound  what  stop  she  please." 

You  would  all  have  me  be  myself,  and  speak  myself, 
however  wrong  myself  may  be.  You  would  all  have 
me  deal  honestly  and  honorably  with  yourselves.  But 
this  I  cannot  do,  unless  I  deal  honestly  and  honorably 
with  myself.  If  unfaithful  to  my  own  convictions,  if 
false  to  myself,  I  shall,  of  necessity,  be  false  to  you : 
but  if'  true  to  myself,  I  shall,  of  necessity,  be  true  to 
you.  To  quote  again  from  that  great  reader  of  the 
human  heart  from  whom  I  had  just  quoted : 

"  To  thine  own  self  be  true ; 
And  it  must  follow,  as  the  night  the  day, 
Thou  canst  not  then  be  false  to  any  man." 

I  will  say  no  more  on  this  point  than  to  add,  that, 
God  helping  me,  I  shall  earn  the  respect  of  every  mem 
ber  of  this  body,  by  respecting  myself. 

And  now,  to  my  argument,  and  to  my  endeavor  to 
show,  that  land  monopoly  is  wrong,  and  that  civil  gov 
ernment  should  neither  practice,  nor  permit  it;  and 
that  the  duty  of  Congress  is  to  yield  up  all  the  public 
land  to  actual  settlers. 


HOMESTEAD   BILL.  75 

I  admit,  that  there  are  things,  in  which  a  man  can 
have  absolute  property,  and  which,  without  qualifica 
tion  or  restriction,  he  can  buy,  or  sell,  or  bequeath,  at 
his  pleasure.  But,  I  deny,  that  the  soil  is  among  these 
things.  What  a  man  produces  from  the  soil,  he  has 
an  absolute  right  to.  He  may  abuse  the  right.  It 
nevertheless  remains.  But  no  such  right  can  he  have 
in  the  soil  itself.  If  he  could,  he  might  monopolize  it. 
If  very  rich,  he  might  purchase  a  township  or  a  county ; 
and,  in  connection  with  half  a  dozen  other  monopolists, 
he  might  come  to  obtain  all  the  lands  of  a  state  or  a 
nation.  Their  occupants  might  be  compelled  to  leave 
them  and  to  starve;  and  the  lands  might  be  con 
verted  into  parks  and  hunting-grounds,  for  the  enjoy 
ment  of  the  aristocracy.  Moreover,  if  this  could  be 
done,  in  the  case  of  a  state  or  a  nation,  why  could  it 
not  be  done  in  the  case  of  the  whole  earth  ? 

But  it  may  be  said,  that  a  man  might  monopolize 
the  fruits  of  the  soil,  and  thus  become  as  injurious  to 
his  fellow-men,  as  by  monopolizing  the  soil  itself.  It 
is  true,  that  he  might,  in  this  wise',  produce  a  scarcity 
of  food.  But  the  calamity  would  be  for  a  few  months 
only,  and  it  would  serve  to  stimulate  the  sufferers  to 
guard  against  its  recurrence,  by  a  more  faithful  tillage, 
and  by  more  caution  in  parting  with  their  crops.  Hav 
ing  the  soil  still  in  their  hands,  they  would  have  the 
remedy  still  in  their  hands.  But  had  they  suffered  the 
soil  itself  to  be  monopolized ;  had  they  suffered  the 


76  HOMESTEAD   BILL. 

soil  itself,  instead  of  the  fruits  of  it,  to  pass  out  of  their 
hands;  then  they  would  be  without  remedy.  Then 
they  would  lie  at  the  mercy  of  him,  who  has  it  in  his 
power  to  dictate  the  terms  on  which  they  may  again 
have  access  to  'the  soil,  or  who,  in  his  heartless  perverse- 
ness,  might  refuse  its  occupation  on  any  terms  what 
ever. 

What  I  have  here  supposed  in  my  argument  is 
abundantly — alas!  but  too  abundantly — -justified  by 
facts.  Land  monopoly  has  reduced  no  small  share  of 
the  human  family  to  abject  and  wretched  dependence, 
for  it  has  shut  them  out  from  the  great  source  of  sub 
sistence,  and  frightfully  increased  the  precariousness  of 
life.  Unhappy  Ireland  illustrates  the  great  power  of 
land  monopoly  for  evil.  The  right  to  so  much  as  a 
standing  place  on  the  earth  is  denied  to  the  great  mass 
of  her  people.  Their  great  impartial  Father  has  placed 
them  on  the  earth;  and,  in  placing  them  on  it,  has 
irresistibly  implied  their  right  to  live  of  it.  Neverthe 
less,  land  monopoly  tells  them,  that  they  are  trespassers, 
and  treats  them  as  trespassers.  Even  when  most  indul 
gent,  land  monopoly  allows  them  nothing  better  than 
to  pick  up  the  crumbs  of  the  barest  existence ;  and, 
when,  in  his  most  rigorous  moods,  the  monster  com 
pels  them  to  starve  and  die  by  millions.  Ireland — 
poor,  land-monopoly-cursed  and  famine- wasted  Ireland 
— has  still  a  population  of  some  six  millions  ;  and  yet 
it  is  only  six  thousand  persons,  who  have  monopolized 


HOMESTEAD   BILL.  77 

her  soil.  Scotland  has  some  three  millions  of  people  ; 
and  three  thousand  is  the  number  of  the  monopolists  of 
her  soil.  England  and  Wales  contain  some  eighteen  mil 
lions  of  people,  and  the  total  number  of  those,  who  claim 
exclusive  right  to  the  soil  of  England  and  "Wales,  is 
thirty  thousand.  I  may  not  be  rightly  informed,  as  to 
the  numbers  of  the  land  monopolists  in  those  countries ; 
but  whether  they  are  twice  as  great,  or  half  as  great, 
as  I  have  given  them,  is  quite  immaterial  to  the  essence 
of  my  argument  against  land  monopoly.  I  would  say 
in  this  connection,  that  land  monopoly,  or  the  accumu 
lation  of  the  land  in  the  hands  of  the  few,  has  increased 
very  rapidly  in  England.  A  couple  of  centuries  ago, 
there  were  several  times  as  many  English  land-holders, 
as  there  are  now. 

I  need  say  no  more  to  prove,  that  land  monopoly  is 
a  very  high  crime,  and  that  it  is  the  imperative  duty 
of  Government  to  put.  a  stop  to  it.  Were  the  monopo 
ly  of  the  light  and  air  practicable,  and  were  the  mono 
polists  of  these  elements  (having  armed  themselves  with 
title  deeds  to  them)  to  sally  forth  and  threaten  the  peo 
ple  of  one  town  with  a  vacuum,  in  case  they  are  unwill 
ing  or  unable  to  buy  their  supply  of  air ;  and  threaten 
the  people  of  another  town  with  total  darkness,  in  case 
they  will  not  or  cannot  buy  their  supply  of  light ;  there, 
confessedly,  would  be  no  higher  duty  on  Government 
than  to  put  an  end  to  such  wicked  and  death-deal 
ing  monopolies.  But  these  monopolies  would  not  differ 


78  HOMESTEAD   BILL. 

in  principle  from  land  monopoly ;  and  they  would  be 
no  more  fatal  to  the  enjoyments  of  human  existence, 
and  to  human  existence  itself,  than  land  monopoly  has 
proved  itself  capable  of  being.  Why  land  monopoly 
has  not  swept  the  earth  of  all  good,  is  not  because  it 
is  unadapted  and  inadequate  to  that  end,  but  because 
it  has  been  only  partially  carried  out. 

The  right  of  a  man  to  the  soil,  the  light,  and  the  air, 
is  to  so  much  of  each  of  them,  as  he  needs,  and  no  more ; 
and  for  so  long  as  he  lives,  and  no  longer.  In  other 
words,  this  dear  mother  earth,  with  her  never-failing 
nutritious  bosom;  and  this  life-preserving  air,  which 
floats  around  it ;  and  this  sweet  light,  which  visits  it, 
are  all  owned  by  each  present  generation,  and  are  equal 
ly  owned  by  all  the  members  of  such  generation.  Hence, 
whatever  the  papers  or  parchments  regarding  the  soil, 
which  we  may  pass  between  ourselves,  they  can  have 
no  legitimate  power  to  impair  the  equal  right  to  it, 
either  of  the  persons,  who  compose  this  generation,  or 
of  the  persons,  who  shall  compose  the  next. 

It  is  a  very  glaring  assumption  on  the  part  of  one 
generation  to  control  the  distribution  and  enjoyment  of 
natural  rights  for  another  generation.  We  of  the  pre 
sent  generation  have  no  more  liberty  to  provide,  that 
one  person  of  the  next  generation  shall  have  ten  thou 
sand  acres  and  another  but  ten  acres,  than  we  have  to 
provide,  that  one  person  of  the  next  generation  shall  live 
a  hundred  years  and  another  but  a  hundred  days ;  and 
no  more  liberty  to  provide,  that  a  person  of  the  next 


HOMESTEAD   BILL.  79 

generation  shall  be  destitute  of  land,  than  that  he  shall 
be  destitute  of  light  or  air.  They,  who  compose  a  gen 
eration,  are,  so  far  as  natural  rights  are  concerned,  abso 
lutely  entitled  to  a  free  and  equal  start  in  life ;  and  that 
equality  is  not  to  be  disturbed,  and  that  freedom  is  not 
to  be  encumbered,  by  any  arrangements  of  the  preced 
ing  generation. 

I  have  referred  to  the  miseries,  which  land  monopoly 
has  brought  upon  the  human  family,  and  to  the  duty 
of  the  Government  to  put  a  stop  to  it.  But  how  shall 
Government  put  a  stop  to  it  ?  I  answer,  by  putting  a 
stop  to  the  traffic  in  land,  and  by  denying  to  every  per 
son  all  right  to  more  than  his  share  of  the  land.  In 
other  words,  the  remedy  for  land  monopoly  is,  that  Gov 
ernment  shall  prescribe  the  largest  quantity  of  land, 
which  may  be  held  by  an  individual ;  and  shall,  at  dis 
tant  periods,  vary  the  quantity,  according  to  the  increase 
or  diminution  of  the  population.  This  maximum  might, 
in  our  own  country,  where  the  population  is  so  sparse, 
be  carried  as  high  as  four  or  five  hundred  acres.  Never 
theless,  it  might  be  necessary  to  reduce  it  one  half, 
should  our  population  be  quadrupled.  In  a  country, 
as  densely  peopled  as  Ireland,  this  maximum  should, 
probably,  not  exceed  thirty  or  forty  acres. 

What  I  have  said  concerning  the  land  maximum  ob 
viously  applies  but  to  such  tracts,  as  are  fit  for  hus 
bandry.  To  many  tracts — to  such,  for  instance,  as  are 
valuable  only  for  mining  or  lumbering — it  can  have  no 
application. 


80  HOMESTEAD  BILL. 

I  may  be  asked,  whether  I  would  have  the  present 
acknowledged  claims  to  land  disturbed.  I  answer, 
that  I  would,  where  the  needs  of  the  people  demand  it. 
In  Ireland,  for  instance,  there  is  the  most  urgent  ne 
cessity  for  overriding  such  claims,  and  subdividing  the 
land  anew.  But,  in  our  own  country,  there  is  an  abun 
dance  of  vacant  and  unappropriated  land  for  the  land 
less  to  go  to.  We  ought  not,  however,  to  presume  upon 
this  abundance  to  delay  abolishing  land  monopoly.  The 
greediness  of  land  monopolists  might,  in  a  single  gener 
ation,  convert  this  abundance  into  scarcity.  Moreover, 
if  we  do  not  provide  now  for  the  peaceable  equal  dis 
tribution  of  the  public  lands,  it  may  be  too  late  to  pro 
vide  for  it  hereafter.  Justice,  so  palpable  and  so  neces 
sary,  cannot  be  withheld  but  at  the  risk  of  being  grasp 
ed  violently. 

What  I  have  said  respecting  the  duty  of  Government 
to  vary  the  land  maximum  at  wide  intervals,  does,  as  I 
have  already  intimated,  apply  to  our  own  country,  as 
well  as  to  other  countries.  The  time  may  come,  when,  in 
this  country,  broad  as  it  is,  it  will  be  necessary  and  just 
to  disturb  even  the  richest  and  most  highly  cultivated 
landed  possessions.  Should  our  population  become  so 
crowded,  as  to  afford  but  fifty  acres  to  a  family,  then 
the  farm  of  a  hundred  acres,  and  that,  too,  however  ex 
pensively  every  acre  of  it  may  be  improved,  must  be 
divided  into  two  equal  parts ;  and  the  possessor  of  it, 
however  old  may  be  his  possession,  must  be  compelled 
to  give  up  one  of  them  to  his  landless  brother.  To 


HOMESTEAD   BILL.  81 

deny  the  soundness  of  this  conclusion,  is  to  deny,  not 
only  the  equality,  but  even  the  very  fact,  of  the  human 
brotherhood. 

It  is  in  the  light  of  the  possibility  of  such  a  division, 
that  no  man  can  sell  his  farm  and  convey  it  by  a  deed, 
which  shall  certainly  carry  title  to  it  for  ever.  I  am 
willing  to  admit,  that  a  man  can  sell  or  bequeath  his 
farm,  though,  in  strictness,  it  is  but  the  betterments  or 
improvements  upon  the  soil,  and  not  the  soil  itself,  which 
he  sells  or  bequeaths.  But  the  purchaser,  or  inheritor, 
and  their  successors,  incur  the  hazard  of  having  their 
possessions  clipped  by  the  new  land  maximum,  which 
it  may  be  the  duty  of  Government  to  prescribe. 

It  is  said,  however,  that  all  talk  of  land  monopoly  in 
America  is  impertinent  and  idle.  It  is  boasted,  that,  in 
escaping  from  primogeniture  and  entail,  we  have  escap 
ed  from  the  evils  of  land  monopoly.  But  the  boast  is 
unfounded.  These  evils  already  press  heavily  upon  us ; 
and  they  will  press  more  and  more  heavily  upon  us, 
unless  the  root  of  them  is  extirpated — unless  land  mo 
nopoly  is  abolished.  In  the  old  portions  of  the  country, 
the  poor  are  oppressed  and  defrauded  of  an  essential 
natural  right  by  the  accumulation  of  farms  in  the  hands 
of  wealthy  families.  In  the  new,  the  way  of  the  poor, 
and  indeed  of  the  whole  population,  to  comfort  and  pros 
perity  is  blocked  up  by  tracts  of  wild  land,  which  spec 
ulators  retain  for  the  unjust  purpose  of  having  them  in 
crease  in  value  out  of  the  toil  expended  upon  the  con 
tiguous  land.  And  why  should  we  flatter  ourselves, 


82  HOMESTEAD  BILL. 

that  land  monopoly,  if  suffered  to  live  among  us,  will 
not,  in  time,  get  laws  enacted  for  its  extension  and  per 
petuity,  as  effective  even  as  primogeniture  and  entail? 
To  let  alone  any  great  wrong,  in  the  hope,  that  it  will 
never  outgrow  its  present  limits,  is  very  unwise — very 
unsafe.  But  land  monopoly  is  not  only  a  great,  but  a 
mighty  wrong ;  and,  if  let  alone,  it  may  stretch  and  for 
tify  itself,  until  it  has  become  invincible. 

Much  happier  world  will  this  be,  when  land  monopo 
ly  shall  cease ;  when  his  needed  portion  of  the  soil  shall 
be  accorded  to  every  person ;  when  it  shall  no  more  be 
bought  and  sold ;  when,  like  salvation,  it  shall  be 
"  without  money  and  without  price ;"  when,  in  a  word, 
it  shall  be  free,  even  as  God  made  it  free.  Then,  when 
the  good  time,  prophetically  spoken  of,  shall  have  come, 
and  "every  man  shall  sit  under  his  own  vine  and  fig 
tree,"  the  world  will  be  much  happier,  because,  in  the 
first  place,  wealth  will  then  be  so  much  more  equally  dis 
tributed,  and  the  rich  and  the  poor  will  then  be  so  com 
paratively  rare.  Riches  and  poverty  are  both  abnor 
mal,  false,  unhappy  states,  and  they  will  yet  be  declared 
to  be  sinful  states.  They  beget  each  other.  Over 
against  the  one  is  ever  to  be  found  a  corresponding  de 
gree  of  the  other.  So  long,  then,  as  the  masses  are 
robbed  by  land  monopoly,  the  world  will  be  cursed 
with  riches  and  poverty.  But,  when  the  poor  man  is 
put  in  possession  of  his  portion  of  the  goodly  green  earth, 
and  is  secured  by  the  strong  arm  of  Government  in  the 
enjoyment  of  a  home,  from  which  not  he,  nor  his  wife, 


HOMESTEAD  BILL.  83 

nor  his  children,  can  be  driven,  then  is  he  raised  above 
poverty,  not  only  by  the  possession  of  the  soil,  but  still 
more  by  the  virtues,  which  he  cultivates  in  his  heart, 
whilst  he  cultivates  the  soil.  Then,  too,  he  no  longer 
ministers  to  the  undue  accumulation  of  wealth  by  others, 
as  he  did,  when  advantage  was  taken  of  his  homeless 
condition,  and  he  was  compelled  to  serve  for  what  he 
could  get. 

I  would  add  in  this  place,  that  inasmuch  as  land 
monopoly  is  the  chief  cause  of  beggary,  comparatively 
little  beggary  will  remain  after  land  monopoly  is  abol 
ished.  Where  a  nation  is  very  badly  governed  in  other 
respects,  the  abolition  of  land  monopoly  may  be  very  far 
from  resulting  in  the  abolition  of  all  beggary.  And 
here  let  me  say,  that  very  little  good  can  be  promised 
from  any  reform  to  any  people,  who  allow  themselves 
to  be  oppressed  and  crushed  by  a  national  debt.  France 
has  done  much  toward  abolishing  land  monopoly.  But, 
because  she  is  so  much  worse  governed  than  England, 
she  is,  in  the  extent  of  her  beggary,  not  very  far  behind 
England.  I  need  not  dwell  upon,  nor  even  describe,  the 
evils  of  beggary ;  and  I  need  not  say,  that  it  is  the  duty 
of  Government  to  put  an  end  to  it,  so  far  as  Government 
has  the  power,  and  the  right  to  do  so.  Beggary  is  an  im 
measurably  great  evil.  It  is  such,  not  only  because  it 
is  a  burden  upon  the  world,  but  far  more,  because  it  is 
a  shame  to  the  world — a  shame  to  the  beggar,  and  a 
shame  to  mankind. 

I  would,  at  this  stage  of  my  remarks,  notice  the  cavil, 


81  HOMESTEAD   BILL. 

that  even  if  the  equal  ownership  of  the  soil  were  prac 
tically  acknowledged,  nevertheless  there  would  be  per 
sons,  who  would  get  rich,  and  persons,  who  would  get 
poor.  This  would,  doubtless,  be  true  to  a  considerable 
extent ;  for,  on  the  hand,  there  are  the  provident,  and 
on  the  other  the  improvident;  on  the  one  hand  the 
cunning  and  crafty,  and  on  the  other  the  simple  and  un 
suspecting.  But  because  there  will  be  rich  and  poor  after 
the  land  is  equally  distributed,  is  that  a  reason  why  it 
should  not  be  equally  distributed  ?  If,  notwithstanding 
such  equal  distribution,  there  are  persons,  who  will  still 
be  poor;  if,  notwithstanding  Government  restores  to 
its  subjects  their  natural  right  to  the  soil,  some  of  them 
are  incapable  of  rising  above  poverty ;  then  is  it  all  the 
more  clearly  proved,  that  Government  was  bound  to 
mitigate  their  poverty  by  securing  them  homes.  If, 
notwithstanding  they  are  put  in  possession  of  their  por 
tions  of  the  soil,  they  are  still  poor,  alas,  how  much 
poorer  would  they  have  been  without  those  portions  ? 
And,  again :  if  there  are  persons  who  get  rich,  notwith 
standing  they  are  not  permitted  to  wield  land  monopo 
ly  in  behalf  of  their  ambition,  then  how  manifestly  im 
portant  is  it,  that  they  were  not  allowed  this  means  of 
getting  richer  ? 

In  the  next  place,  the  world  will  be  much  happier, 
when  land  monopoly  shall  cease,  because  manual  labor 
will  then  be  so  honorable,  because  so  well  nigh  uni 
versal. 

It  will  be  happier,  too,  because  the  wages  system, 


HOMESTEAD   BILL.  85 

with  all  its  attendant  degradation,  and  unhappy  influ 
ences,  will  find  but  little  room  in  the  new  and  radically 
changed  condition  of  society,  which  will  follow  the  abo 
lition  of  land  monopoly.  Then,  as  a  general  thing, 
each  man  will  do  his  own  work,  and  each  woman  hers  ; 
and  this,  too,  not  from  choice  only,  but  from  necessity 
also ;  for  then,  few  will  be  wealthy  enough  to  be  able 
to  hire,  and  few  poor  enough  to  consent  to  serve. 

It  will  be  happier,  too,  because  of  the  general  equal 
ity  there  will  then  be,  not  in  property  only,  but  in 
education,  and  other  essential  respects  also.  How  much 
fewer  the  instances  then,  than  now,  of  a  haughty  spirit 
on  the  one  hand,  and  of  an  abject  spirit  on  the  other ! 
The  pride  of  superior  circumstances,  so  common  now, 
will  then  be  rare.  And  rare,  too,  will  be  that  abject- 
ness  of  spirit,  so  common  now,  (though,  happily,  far 
from  universal,)  in  the  condition  of  dependent  poverty  ; 
and  the  difficulty  of  overcoming  which  is  so  well  com 
pared  to  the  difficulty  of  making  an  empty  bag  stand 
up  straight ! 

Again,  the  world  will  be  happier,  when  land  mono 
poly  is  abolished,  because  it  will  more  abound  in  mar 
riage.  Marriage,  when  invited  by  a  free  soil,  will  be 
much  more  common  and  early,  than  when,  as  now,  it 
must  be  delayed,  until  the  parties  to  it  are  able  to  pur 
chase  a  home. 

Another  gain  to  the  world  from  abolishing  land  mo 
nopoly,  is  that  war  would  then  be  well  nigh  impossible. 


86  HOMESTEAD  BILL. 

It  would  be  so,  if  only  because  it  would  be  difficult  to 
enlist  men  into  its  ranks.  For  who  would  leave  the 
comforts  and  endearments  of  home,  to  enter  upon  the 
poorly-paid  and  unhonored  services  of  a  private  sol 
dier.  It  was  not  "  young  Fortinbras"  only,  who,  in 
collecting  his  army, 

"  Shark'd  up  a  list  of  landless  resolutes." 

But,  in  every  age  and  country,  war  has  found  its  re 
cruits  among  the  homeless — among  vagabonds. 

And  still  another  benefit  to  flow  from  the  abolition 
of  land  monopoly  is  its  happy  influence  upon  the  cause 
of  temperance — that  precious  cause,  which  both  the 
great  and  the  small  are,  in  their  folly  and  madness,  so 
wont  to  scorn,  but  which  is,  nevertheless,  none  the  less 
essential  to  private  happiness  and  prosperity,  to  nation 
al  growth  and  glory.  The  ranks  of  intemperance,  like 
those  of  war,  are,  to  a  great  extent,  recruited  from  the 
homeless  and  the  vagrant. 

I  will  glance  at  but  one  more  of  the  good  effects,  that 
will  result  from  the  abolition  of  land  monopoly.  Reli 
gion  will  rejoice,  when  the  masses,  now  robbed  of 
homes  by  land  monopoly,  shall  have  homes  to  thank 
God  for — homes,  in  which  -to  cultivate  the  home-bred 
virtues,  to  feed  upon  religious  truth,  and  to  grow  in 
Christian  vigor  and  beauty. 

How  numerous  and  precious  the  blessings,  that  would 
follow  the  abolition  of  land  monopoly  !  By  the  num 


HOMESTEAD  BILL.  87 

her  and  preciousness  of  those  blessings  I  might  entreat 
civil  government,  the  earth  over,  to  abolish  it.  But  I 
will  not.  I  prefer  to  demand  this  justice  in  the  name 
of  justice.  In  the  name  of  justice,  I  demand,  that  civil 
government,  wherever  guilty  of  it,  shall  cease  to  sell 
and  give  away  land — shall  cease  to  sell  and  give  away 
what  is  not  its  own.  The  vacant  land  belongs  to  all, 
who  need  it.  It  belongs  to  the  landless  of  every  clime 
and  condition.  The  extent  of  the  legitimate  concern 
of  Government  with  it  is  but  to  regulate  and  protect  its 
occupation.  In  the  name  of  justice  do  I  demand  of 
Government,  not  only,  that  it  shall  itself  cease  from  the 
land  traffic,  but  that  it  shall  compel  its  subjects  to  cease 
from  it.  Government  owes  protection  to  its  subjects. 
It  owes  them  nothing  else.  But  that  people  are  em 
phatically  unprotected,  who  are  left  by  their  Govern 
ment  to  be  the  prey  of  land  monopoly. 

The  Federal  Government  has  sinned  greatly  against 
human  rights  in  usurping  the  ownership  of  a  large 
share  of  the  American  soil.  It  can,  of  course,  enact  no 
laws,  and  exert  no  influence,  against  land  monopoly, 
whilst  it  is  itself  the  mammoth  monopolist  of  land. 
This  Government  has  presumed  to  sell  millions  of 
acres,  and  to  give  away  millions  of  acres.  It  has 
lavished  land  on  States,  and  corporations,  and  indivi 
duals,  as  if  it  were  itself  the  Great  Maker  of  the  land. 
Our  State  Governments,  also,  have  been  guilty  of  as 
suming  to  own  the  soil.  They,  too,  need  repent. 


88  HOMESTEAD  BILL. 

And  they  will  repent,  if  the  Federal  Government  will 
lead  the  way.  Let  this  Government  distinctly  disclaim 
all  ownership  of  the  soil ;  and,  everywhere  within  its 
jurisdiction,  let  it  forbid  land  monopoly,  and  prescribe 
the  maximum  quantity  of  land,  which  an  individual 
may  possess,  and  the  State  Governments  will  not  fail 
to  be  won  by  so  good  and  so  attractive  an  example. 
And  if  the  Governments  of  this  great  nation  shall  ac 
knowledge  the  right  of  every  man  to  a  spot  of  earth  for 
a  home,  may  we  not  hope,  that  the  Governments  of 
many  other  nations  will  speedily  do  likewise  ?  Nay, 
may  we  not,  in  that  case,  regard  the  age  as  not  distant, 
when  land  monopoly,  which  numbers  far  more  victims 
than  any  other  evil,  and  which  is,  moreover,  the  most 
prolific  parent  of  evil,  shall  disappear  from  the  whole 
earth,  and  shall  leave  the  whole  earth  to  illustrate,  as  it 
never  can,  whilst  under  the  curse  of  land  monopoly, 
the  fatherhood  of  God  and  the  brotherhood  of  man  ? 

But  will  this  Government  take  this  step,  which  we 
have  now  called  on  it  to  take  ?  Will  it  go  forward  in 
this  work  of  truth  and  love  ?  Will  it  have  a  part,  and 
the  most  honorable  part,  in  bringing  all  this  blessedness 
and  glory  upon  the  human  family  ?  A  more  important 
question  has  never  been  addressed  to  it ;  and  the  pass 
ing  of  this  bill  will  be  the  most  significant  and  satisfac 
tory  answer,  which  this  question  could  now  receive. 
Let  this  bill  become  a  law,  and,  if  our  Government 
shall  be  consistent  with  itself,  land  monopoly  will  surely 


HOMESTEAD  BILL.       .  89 

cease  within  the  limits  of  the  exclusive  jurisdiction  of 
that  Government.  But  let  this  bill  be  defeated,  and  let 
success  attend  the  applications  for  scores  of  millions  of 
acres  for  soldiers,  and  for  hundreds  of  millions  of  acres 
for  railroad  and  canal  companies,  and  land  monopoly 
will  then  be  so  strongly  fastened  upon  this  nation,  that 
violence  alone  will  be  able  to  throw  it  off.  The  best 
hope  for  the  poor  will  then  perish.  The  most  cherished 
reliance  for  human  progress  will  then  be  trodden  under 
foot. 

Let  it  not  be  supposed,  that  I  would  not  have  the 
soldier  liberally  paid.  No  man  would  go  further  than 
myself  in  rewarding  the  armed  servant  of  the  Republic. 
But  I  would  not  have  the  poor  robbed ; — I  would  not 
have  a  high  crime  committed  against  humanity  ; — even 
for  the  sake  of  doing  justice  to  the  soldier.  IfTdeed, 
justice  can  never  be  done  by  injustice. 

Whatever  is  due  to  the  soldier  should  be  paid — paid 
promptly — and  paid,  too,  with  large  interest.  But  let 
it  be  paid  in  money.  And,  I  would  here  say,  that  a 
little  money  would  be  worth  more  'to  the  soldier  than 
much  land.  If  the  land  market  is  to  be  glutted,  as  is 
now  proposed,  his  land  will  be  worth  but  little  to  him. 
It  will  not  sell,  at  the  present  time.  And  with  him  and 
his  necessitous  family,  the  present  time  is  emphatically 
all  time.  They  cannot  wait,  as  can  the  speculator, 
until  the  land  shall  become  salable. 

My  reference  to  the  speculator  affords  me  an  occasion 


90  HOMESTEAD  BILL. 

for  saying,  that  not  only  the  lands,  which  you  let 
soldiers  have,  but  also  the  lands,  which  you  let  rail 
road  companies  and  canal  companies  have,  will  get 
into  the  hands  of  land  speculators.  That  is  their 
sure  and  speedy  destination  ;  and  it  is  in  those 
hands,  that  land  monopoly  works  its  mightiest  mis 
chief,  and  develops  its  guiltiest  character. 

Nor  let  it  be  supposed,  that  there  is  no  railroad  nor  no 
canal,  that  I  would  have  Government  aid  in  building. 
Wherever  it  can  be  fairly  plead  in  behalf  of  the  pro 
posed  canal  or  railroad,  that  it  cannot  be  built  without 
the  aid  of  Government,  and  that  the  building  of  it  will 
furnish  Government  with  an  indispensable,  or,  at  least, 
very  important  means  for  extending  that  protection, 
which  is  ever  due  from  Government ;  there,  I  admit,  is 
a  case,  in  which  Government  is  bound  to  aid.  Hence 
is  it,  that  whilst,  on  the  one  hand,  I  pronounce  it  to  be 
a  gross  perversion  of  its  powers,  and  a  wide  and  guilty 
departure  from  its  province,  for  Government  to  help 
build  canals,  and  railroads  which  are  to  subserve  but 
the  ordinary  purposes  of  commerce  and  travel ;  I  hold, 
on  the  other,  that  Government  is  bound  to  offer  a 
liberal,  though  not  an  extravagant  sum  to  the  com 
pany,  that  shall  build  the  Pacific  Eailroad — that  road 
being  greatly  needed,  as  a  facility  for  affording  Gov 
ernmental  protection.  Hence  it  is,  too,  that  the  claim 
on  Government  to  help  build  the  canal  around  the 
Falls  of  St.  Mary  was  a  just  one.  And  for  the  like 


HOMESTEAD   BILL. 

reason  should  Government  aid  in  building  the  pro 
posed  canal  around  the  Falls  of  Niagara.  It  is 
true,  that  the  commercial  interests  of  many  of  our 
States  call  loudly  for  the  building  of  this  canal.  In 
deed,  there  is  no  one  thing  for  which  they  call  so  loudly. 
Nevertheless,  I  would  not,  for  that  reason,  have  Gov 
ernment  respond  to  the  call.  But  because  this  canal 
might  prove  an  important  means  in  the  hands  of  Gov 
ernment  of  affording  that  protection,  which  it  owes  to 
the  persons  and  property  of  its  subjects,  I  should  feel 
bound  to  vote  the  liberal  aid  of  Government  in  building 
it.  Moreover,  Government  would  be  grossly  inconsist 
ent,  if,  so  long  as  it  looks  to  the  possibility  of  war,  it 
should  refuse  to  vote  two  or  three  millions  of  dollars  to 
the  company,  that  might  thereby  be  induced  to  furnish 
Government  with  this  means  of  transporting  its  vessels, 
munitions,  and  provisions  of  war,  between  Lakes  Erie 
and  Ontario. 


LETTER 


EXPLAINING 


VOTE  ON  THE  HOMESTEAD  BILL. 

[Mr.  Douglass  published  it  in  the  newspaper  which  he  edits.] 
HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES,  MARCH  G,  1854. 

FKEDEEICK  DOUGLASS; 

My  Dear  Sir :  An  hour  ago,  I  gave  my  vote  against 
the  Homestead  Bill :  and,  that  too,  notwithstanding  I 
had  made  a  speech  in  favor  of  it ;  and,  that  too,  not 
withstanding  I  have,  for  so  many  years,  loved,  and  ad 
vocated,  and  acted  on,  the  great  essential  principles  of 
the  bill. 

My  apparent  inconsistency  in  this  case  is  explained 
by  the  fact,  that,  just  before  we  were  called  to  vote  on 
the  bill,  it  was  so  amended,  as  to  limit  its  grant  of 
land  to  white  persons. 

If  my  fellow  land-reformers,  with  whom  I  have,  so 
long,  toiled  for  the  success  of  our  land-reform  doctrines, 


94  '    VOTE   ON  THE   HOMESTEAD   BILL. 

shall  be  aggrieved  by  my  vote,  I  shall  be  sorry.  Never 
theless,  I  can  never  regret  my  vote.  I  was  a  man  before 
I  was  a  land-reformer.  And,  for  the  sake  of  no  gains, 
however  great,  or  however  many,  can  I  consent  to  ignore 
the  claims,  and  even  the  fact  itself,  of  a  common  man 
hood.  But  the  advantages,  which  are  sought,  at  the 
expense  of  trampling  on  human  rights,  are  not  gains. 
Such  gains  are  losses — even  to  those,  who  get  them. 
The  Homestead  Bill  would  have  been  purchased  at  too 
dear  a  rate  had  it  proscribed  only  one  negro,  or  only 
one  Indian.  The  curse  of  God  is  upon  the  bill,  or  there 
is  no  God.  There  is  no  God,  if  we  have  liberty  to  in 
sult  and  outrage  any  portion  of  His  children. 

To  reconcile  me  to  the  bill  as  amended,  I  was  told 
by  one  of  the  members  of  Congress,  that  the  colored 
people  would  not  be  shut  out  from  the  public  lands : — 
but  that  they  could  still  buy  them !  That  is,  the  color 
ed  people  must  buy  their  homes,  whilst  the  white  peo 
ple  are  to  have  free  homes !  What  a  comment  this  on 
the  great  justifying  doctrine  of  negro-slavery,  that  the 
negroes  are  unable  to  take  care  of  themselves !  What 
a  spectacle  of  merciless  cruelty  we  present !  The  most 
frightful  passages  of  history  furnish  no  parallel  to  it. 
Our  National  Legislature  joins  our  State  Legislatures 
in  holding  out  to  the  free  colored  people  the  hard  alter 
native  of  returning  under  the  yoke  of  slavery,  or  of 
being  shut  out  from  our  broad  continent.  And,  then, 
the  excuse  for  this  treatment  is  no  less  unreasonable  and 
insulting  than  the  treatment  is  cruel  and  murderous. 


VOTE   ON   THE   HOMESTEAD   BILL.  95 

It  is,  that  the  free  colored  people  are  too  ignorant,  and 
lazy,  and  worthless,  to  deserve  any  better  choice  than 
slavery  or  death.  And  this  is  the  excuse  of  those,  who 
shut  out  the  colored  people  from  schools;  and  drive 
them  into  negro-pews ;  and  banish  them  from  society ; 
and  mark  them  as  physical  and  moral  lepers,  to  be 
everywhere  shunned,  and  loathed,  and  hated ! 

That  our  free  colored  brethren  should  in  these  cir 
cumstances  be  no  more  discouraged  and  dejected ;  no 
more  self-despairing,  and  self-despising ;  no  lower  in  in 
telligence,  and  morals,  and  thrift,  is  to  me  -amazing. 
That  the  mass  of  them  should,  notwithstanding  the  de 
pressing,  crushing  influences  upon  them,  be  still  rising 
and  bettering  their  condition ;  and  that  there  should  be 
rapidly  multiplying  instances  among  them  of  the  ac 
quisition  of  wealth,  and  of  distinction  in  writing,  and 
oratory,  and  general  scholarship,  is  more  than  I  had 
supposed  to  be  possible. 

Your  friend, 

GEEEIT  SMITH. 


SPEECH 


ON  THE 


BILL  TO  AID  THE  TERRITORY  OF  MIMESOTA 

CONSTRUCTING  A  RAILROAD  FOR  MILITARY,  POSTAL, 
AND  FOR  OTHER  PURPOSES. 


M  A  E  C  II     T,    1  8  5  4  . 


MR.  CHAIRMAN  :  As  I  have  but  just  now  come  into  the 
Hall,  and  as  I  have  lost  the  former  part  of  the  discussion, 
and  as  I  have  never  until  this  moment  seen  a  copy  of  this 
bill,  I  may  not  know,  with  the  necessary  precision,  what 
are  the  subject-matters  of  the  discussion.  But,  with 
my  present  impressions,  I  am  opposed  to  the  bill.  I 
am  opposed  to  this  bill,  not  because  I  am  opposed  to 
any  existing  railroad  company  that  may  be  interested 
in  the  bill,  nor  because  I  doubt  the  worthiness  of  any 
company  that  may  be  organized  to  build  it.  I  have  no 
reason  to  apprehend  that  such  a  company  would  be 
composed  of  any  other  than  honorable  men.  I  have  no 
reason  to  apprehend  that  such  a  company  would  not  be 


98  RAILROAD-BUILDING,    NOT 

moved  to  build  the  road  by  as  pure  and  as  generous  a 
regard  for  the  public  welfare  as  ever  prompted  any,  even 
the  best  railroad  company.  Nor  am  I  opposed  to  this 
bill  because  of  the  possible  fact  that  a  company  of  gen 
tlemen  may  be  interested  in  a  tract  of  land  at  one  of 
the  termini  of  the  proposed  road.  JSTor  am  I  opposed 
to  this  bill  because  the  proposed  road  may  have  the  ef 
fect  to  concentrate  trade  and  travel  at  this  point,  or  to 
divert  trade  and  travel  from  that  point. 

I  am  opposed  to  this  bill  because  it  calls  for  Govern 
ment  to  do  with  the  public  lands  what  I  hold  Govern 
ment  has  no  right  to  do  with  them.  I  hold  that  they 
do  not  belong  to  Government,  and  that  Government 
has  nothing  to  do  with  them  but  to  regulate  and  pro 
tect  the  occupations  which  shall  be  made  upon  them. 
I  hold  that  the  lands  belong  to  the  landless ;  and  that 
both  reason  and  religion,  policy  and  principle,  require 
that  they  shall  be  surrendered  to  the  landless.  But,  as  I 
had  the  opportunity,  a  week  or  two  since,  to  discuss  this 
point  somewhat  extensively  on  this  floor,  I  will  not  con 
sume  the  time  of  the  committee  with  it  any  further,  than 
to  say,  that  when  I  claim  the  public  lands  for  the  land 
less,  I  mean  not  only  the  landless  of  a  certain  complex 
ion,  but  all  the  landless.  Believing,  as  I  do,  that  all 
the  varieties  of  the  human  family  are  equally  dear  to  the 
great  heart  of  their  common  Maker,  I  trust  that  they 
will  ever  be  equally  dear  to  my  little  heart.  So  do  I  aim 
to  bear  myself  toward  all  descriptions  of  my  fellow-men 
—toward  all  my  equal  brothers — for  every  man  is  my 


THE   BUSINESS   OF    GOVERNMENT.  99 

equal  brother — that,  at  the  last  day,  I  shall  be  able  to 
look  into  the  faces  of  them  all,  unabashed  by  the  con 
sciousness  that  I  have  pursued  any  of  them  in  this  life 
with  unrelenting  prejudice  and  merciless  hatred. 

But  to  the  argument.  And,  now,  for  the  sake  of  the 
argument,  I  will  admit  that  the  public  lands  are  proper 
ty  in  the  hands  of  the  Government — as  much  so  as  is 
money.  Nevertheless,  I  still  deny  that  Government 
may  use  them  in  the  way  contemplated  by  this  bill.  I 
insist  that  Government  shall  use  its  property  for  none 
other  than  strictly  governmental  purposes.  It  may  use 
its  property  in  defraying  the  expenses  of  Government  ; 
it  may  use  it  in  affording  protection  to  the  persons  and 
property  of  its  subjects ;  but  there  is  nothing  else  for 
which  Government  may  use  it. 

In  point  of  principle  this  bill  is  all  the  same,  as  would 
be  a  bill  for  the  Federal  Government  to  build  with 
money,  and  nothing  but  money,  the  whole  of  a  railroad 
in  Minnesota.  The  principle  can  not  be  affected  by  the 
fact  that  the  road  in  this  case  is  to  be  built  with  land 
instead  of  money ;  nor  by  the  fact  that  the  appropria 
tion  of  land  asked  for  is  insufficient  to  pay  the  whole 
cost  of  the  road.  If  the  Government  may  build  with 
land  it  may  build  with  money.  If  it  may  furnish  one 
half  or  one  fourth  of  the  means  necessary  to  build  the 
road,  then  it  may  furnish  all.  But  would  not  Congress 
be  startled  by  the  grave  proposition  for  the  Federal 
Government  to  build  the  whole  of  a  long  railroad  in 
Minnesota,  and  that,  too,  with  money  ?  It  should  not 


100  RAILROAD-BUILDING,  'NOT 

be,  however,  if  it  is  reconciled  to  the  passing  of  this 
bill. 

What  is  the  argument  most  relied  on  to  influence 
Government  to  help  build  this  road  ?  It  is  that  the 
road  will  accelerate  the  settlement  of  Minnesota  and  the 
development  of  her  resources ;  and  greatly  enhance  the 
^alue  of  the  public  lands  in  that  Territory.  I -admit 
that  this  would  be  the  effect,  and  I  should  rejoice  in  it ; 
for  I  regard  the  welfare  of  that  Territory  with  great  in 
terest.  But  this  same  effect,  to  a  greater  or  less  extent, 
could  be  produced  by  Government's  building  canals  in 
that  Territory.  May  Government,  therefore,  build 
canals  in  it  ?  Again,  Government  might  promote  these 
good  objects  by  building  churches  and  school-houses  in 
the  Territory.  But  nearly  or  quite  all  of  us  would  con 
demn  it  as  a  gross  perversion  of  its  true  office  for  Govern 
ment  to  help  Minnesota  to  school-houses  and  churches. 
And  yet,  so  far  as  its  right  is  concerned,  Government 
can  as  well  do  these  things  for  Minnesota  as  to  build 
railroads  for  her ;  ay,  and  so  far  as  its  right  is  concerned, 
it  can  as  well  sprinkle  Minnesota  over  with  stores  and 
blacksmith-shops. 

I  intimated  that  I  am  not  opposed  to  the  building  of 
the  road  in  question,  because  of  its  possible  rivalry  with 
some  other  road.  And  yet,  one  reason  why  I  am  op 
posed  to  the  granting  of  land  in  aid  of  the  building  of 
this  and  other  railroads  is,  that  Government  may,  in 
this  wise,  be  throwing  its  great  weight  into  the  seal  0  of 


THE   BUSINESS   OF   GOVERNMENT.  iO' 

one  road  against  another ;  of  one  town  against  another ; 
or  of  some  other  interest  of  one  part  of  the  people 
against  the  like  interest  of  another  part  of  the  people. 
Government  should  avoid  partiality,  not  only  in  the  pur 
pose  of  its  acts,  but,  as  far  as  possible,  in  the  effect  of 
its  acts,  also.  Government  is  bound  to  be  strictly  and 
sternly  impartial.  But  such  impartiality  it  will  best 
maintain,  and  can  only  maintain,  by  refusing  to  extend 
special  help  to  any  classes  or  portions  of  its  subjects ; 
and  by  simply  and  equally  protecting  all. 

I  rejoice  in  the  free  and  extended  discussion  of  this 
bill,  if  it  is  only  because  I  hope  that  we  may  come  out 
of  it  with  juster  views  of  the  nature  of  the  office,  and 
juster  views  of  the  limits  of  the  province,  of  Civil  Gov 
ernment.  It  is  high  time  that  the  American  Congress 
had  settled,  with  more  distinctness  and  more  certainty 
than  it  seems  to  have  done,  the  legitimate  boundaries 
and  the  legitimate  obj  ects  of  Civil  Government.  These 
boundaries  and  these  objects  thus  settled,  we  should 
not  hesitate  as  to  the  true  disposition  to  make  of  this 
bill,  and  of  all  kindred  bills.  We  should  reject  them 
all  promptly. 

But  it  is  said  that  we  have  abundant  precedents  for 
such  disposition  of  the  public  lands  as  is  proposed 
in  this  bill.  Arguments  drawn  from  precedents  are  of 
doubtful  value.  An  age  of  progress  should  rise  above 
precedents — should  make  precedents  for  itself.  "Were 
we  to  rely  on  precedents,  it  might  be  urged  against  us 


102  RAILROAD-BUILDLNT£,    NOT 

that,  inasmuch  as  there  are  more  precedents  for  monar 
chies  than  for  republics,  we  ought  to  supplant  our  Ke- 
public  with  a  monarchy.  In  this  disordered  and  mis 
governed  world  there  are  far  more  precedents  for  the 
wrong  and  the  false  than  for  the  right  and  the  true. 
Shall  we,  therefore,  give  up  the  right  and  the  true  ? 

The  Governments  of  the  earth  have  ever  proved  great 
curses  to  the  people,  by  meddling  with  the  concerns  of 
the  people.  It  is  time  that  we  had  ceased  from  follow 
ing  such  precedents ;  and  that  we  had  left  the  people  to 
do  their  own  work ;  and,  therefore,  to  build  their  own 
railroads  without  help  from  Government  on  the  one 
hand,  and  without  hindrance  from  it  on  the  other. 
Such  hindrance  there  may  be  in  the  case  of  one  road, 
where  Government  helps  build  another,  which  may 
prove  its  rival. 

This  usurpation  by  Government  of  the  work  of  the 
people,  and  its  consequent  neglect  and  bad  performance 
of  its  own  work  has  everywhere,  and  in  every  age, 
been  the  sorest  evil  that  the  people  have  suffered.  I 
would  that  we  might  teach,  in  the  most  emphatic  and 
unmistakable  language,  that,  so  far  as  the  influence  of 
this  body  extends,  the  American  Government  shall 
henceforth  confine  itself  to  its  only  and  one  work  of 
protecting  the  persons  and  property  of  its  subjects, 
and  shall  leave  the  people  to  do  their  own  work  of 
building  churches,  and  schools,  and  railroads,  and 
canals. 


THE  BUSINESS  OF   GOVERNMENT.  103 

Mr.  BAYLY,  of  Virginia.  And  forming  their  own 
governments. 

Mr.  SMITH,  of  New- York.  Yes  ;  and  forming  their 
own  governments.  That  is  right.  The  people  should 
be  allowed  to  form  their  own  governments. 

To  return.  We  have  precedents  for  land  monopoly, 
also.  Poor  Ireland,  and  indeed,  almost  every  other 
part  of  the  world,  famishes  us  with  numberless  such 
precedents.  But  I  hold  that  we  should  turn  our  backs 
upon  such  precedents,  and  throw  open  the  public  lands, 
without  price,  to  the  landless  to  whom  they  belong.  I 
say  that  they  belong  to  the  landless.  The  bare  fact  that 
a  man  is  without  land  is  title  enough  to  his  needed 
share  of  the  vacant  land.  No  clearer,  stronger  title  to  it 
can  he  possibly  have.  Is  there  a  spare  home  in  the 
great  common  inheritance  of  the  human  family  ?  Who 
should  have  it  if  not  the  homeless?  I  repeat  it,  we 
should  make  the  public  lands  free  to  the  poor.  If,  on 
the  contrary,  we  shall  do  with  them  as  is  proposed  in 
this  and  similar  bills,  we  shall  make  much  of  them  cost 
to  the  poor  double,  and  much  of  them  even  quadruple, 
the  price  that  Government  puts  upon  them. 

Mr.  EICHARDSON.  I  dislike  to  interrupt  the  gentle 
man  ;  but  I  feel  it  to  be  my  duty  to  raise  a  question  of 
order.  Three  days  are  set  apart  for  the  consideration 
of  territorial  business,  and  I  submit  that  it  is  not  in  order 


104  RAILROAD-BUILDING,   NOT 

for  the  gentleman  from  New- York  to  discuss  the  Home 
stead  Bill  under  the  proposition  now  before  us. 

Mr.  SMITH.'  I  wo  aid  say  a  word  in  reply  to  the  gen 
tleman,  did  I  believe  that  there  is  any  force  or  perti 
nence  in  what  he  has  said. 

The  CHAIRMAN".  The  gentleman  from  Illinois  raises 
the  question  of  order  that  the  gentleman  from  New- York 
is  not  confining  his  remarks  to  the  discussion  of  the  bill 
now  under  consideration.  The  Chair  perceives  that  the 
gentleman  is  arguing  that  this  grant  of  land  shall  not  be 
made,  and  he  believes  that  the  gentleman  from  New- 
York  is  in  order. 

Mr.  SMITH.  I  ask  no  latitude,  sir.  I  am  willing 
you  should  hold  me  as  strictly  to  the  subject-matter  as  if 
I  were  discussing  it  in  the  House,  and  not  in  this  com 
mittee.  I  have  yet  to  learn  (and  I  think  I  may  add 
that  they  who  know  me  have  yet  to  learn)  that  I  am 
addicted  to  wandering  from  the  subject  under  discus 
sion.  From  having  long  trained  myself  to  the  most 
careful  confinement  of  myself  to  the  subject  in  hand,  I 
hope  not  to  be  found  guilty  of  offending  against  my 
habit,  and  against  confessed  propriety  in  this  respect. 
But,  sir,  I  am  aware  that  many  gentleman  appear  eager 
to  speak  on  this  occasion ;  and  that  there  is  not  an  hour, 
nor  a  half-hour,  for  each  of  us.  I  will  therefore  bring 
my  remarks  to  a  close  ;  I  would  be  just  and  generous 
in  my  use  of  our  common  time. 


THE   BUSINESS  OF  GOVERNMENT.  105 

It  is  said  that  railroads  are  necessary  to  enable  the 
poor  to  get  to  the  public  lands.  Admit  it.  Never 
theless,  there  will  be  railroads  enough  for  this  purpose 
-without  Government's  giving  to  the  rich  the  lands  that 
belong  to  the  poor.  The  poor  ask  no  such  left-handed 
help  as  this  from  Government.  The  poor  have  no 
faith  in  the  maxim,  that  if  Government  will  take  care 
of  the  rich,  the  rich  will  take  care  of  the  poor.  In  de 
manding  the  public  lands  of  Government  the  poor 
demand  only  what  belongs  to  the  poor ;  and  if  Govern 
ment  will  yield  to  this  demand,  the  poor  will  either 
provide  themselves  with  railroads,  or  they  will  make  it 
the  interest  of  others  to  provide  them. 


SPEECH 


ON   THE 


SECOND    DEFICIENCY    BILL. 

» 

MARCH       16,      1854. 

MR.  PRESTON,  of  Kentucky,  had  moved  an  amend 
ment  for  the  completion  of  various  custom-houses  and 
marine  hospitals;  and  Mr.  STANTON,  of  Tennessee,  had 
moved  to  amend  the  amendment  by  adding  to  the 
appropriation. 

Mr.  SMITH  said : — Mr.  Chairman,  I  am  opposed  to 
this  amendment  to  the  amendment,  because  I  am 
opposed  to  the  original  amendment  offered  by  the  gen 
tleman  from  Kentucky,  [Mr.  Preston.]  I  am  opposed 
to  the  original  amendment,  not  because  I  am  opposed 
to  these  appropriations  for  custom-houses  and  marine 
hospitals,  for  I  am  in  favor  of  them.  I  voted  for  them 
all.  I  voted  for  them  all  because,  having  the  recom- 


108  SECOND   DEFICIENCY   BILL. 

mendation  of  the  Secretary,  I  thought  that  they  were 
entitled  to  my  vote. 

I  voted  for  these  appropriations  notwithstanding  I 
am  an  absolute  free-trade  man.  I  long  for  the  day 
when  there  will  not  be  a  custom-house  left  on  the  face 
of  the  earth,  and  when  this  obstruction  to  the  free 
intercourse  of  the  nations  of  the  earth  with  each  other 
shall  have  passed  away  forever.  But  so  long  as  the 
tariff  policy  is  among  the  policies  of  our  nation,  we 
must  have  custom-houses ;  and  it  is  better  that  Govern 
ment  should  build  them  than  rent  them.  If  Govern 
ment  builds  them,  they  will  be  safe  and  suitable.  If  it 
rents  them,  they  will  probably  be  unsafe  and  unsuit 
able. 

I  am  opposed  to  embodying  these  appropriations  in 
the  deficiency  bill,  because,  where  it  is  practicable,  it  is 
well  to  have  every  measure  left  to  stand  on  its  own 
merits.  But  I  am  still  more  opposed  to  it  because  I 
fear  that  the  deficiency  bill,  if  loaded  down  with  these 
appropriations,  will  fail. 

Now,  I  cannot  consent  to  an  attitude  which  may 
look  at  all  like  unreasonable  or  factious  opposition  to 
the  Administration.  In  all  the  views  and  measures  of 
the  Administration  which  are  reasonable,  I  shall  gladly 
concur.  To  defeat  the  deficiency  bill  would  be  to 
embarrass  the  Administration,  and  would  be  to  block 
the  wheels  of  Government.  Moreover,  it  would  be  to 
dishonor  the  Government  and  the  nation,  by  leaving 
debts  unpaid  which  should  be  paid,  and  paid  now — 


SECOND   DEFICIENCY   BILL.  109 

for  in  many  cases  there  is  urgent  need  of  their  being 
paid  now. 

When,  a  few  weeks  ago,  the  deficiency  bill  was  lost, 
through  the  mutual  jealousies  of  the  "Whigs  and  Demo 
crats,  I  rejoiced  that  I  stand  alone  upon  this  floor ;  that 
I  am  a  party  by  myself,  and  in  myself ;  that  I  am  in  a 
greatly  and  gloriously  independent  minority  of  one, 
and  that  I  was  therefore  unaffected  by  those  jealousies 
which  defeated  the  bill. 

I  hope,  sir,  that  the  deficiency  bill  will  be  passed ; 
and  I  hope  that  when  it  is  passed,  we  shall  pass  the 
appropriation  bill  also.  When  we  have  done  justice  to 
the  deficiency  bill,  we  shall  thereby  have  conciliated 
the  friends  of  that  bill,  who  are  opposed  to  the  appro 
priation  bill.  They  will  then  be  better  able  and  better 
disposed  to  view  with  candor  the  claims  of  these  pro 
posed  appropriations,  and  to  appreciate  their  force. 


TEMPERANCE. 


M  A  E  0  H     31,     1854. 

the  discussion  this  day  on  the  bill  for  build 
ing  Steamships,  Mr.  SMITH  made  repeated  attempts  to 
amend  it  with  the  words :  "  No  intoxicating  liquors 
shall  ever  be  kept  in  said  ships  ;" — but  the  Chairman 
as  repeatedly  ruled  the  amendment  to  be  out  of  order. 
On  Mr.  Smith's  appeal  from  the  division  of  the  Chair, 
the  House  sustained  the  Chair. 


SPEECH 

ON  THE 

NEBRASKA     BILL. 

APRIL       6,      1854. 

[The  motto  which  Mr  Smith  prefixed  to  this  Speech,  and  under  which 
it  first  appeared,  was :  "  No  Slavery  in  Nebraska :  No  Slavery  in  the 
Nation :  Slavery  an  Outlaw."] 

So,  Mr.  Chairman,  the  slavery  question  is  up  again  ! 
— up  again,  even  in  Congress ! !  It  will  not  keep 
clown.  At  no  bidding,  however  authoritative,  will  it 
keep  down.  The  President  of  the  United  States  com 
mands  it  to  keep  down.  Indeed,  he  has,  hitherto, 
seemed  to  make  the  keeping  down  of  this  ques 
tion  the  great  end  of  his  great  office.  Members  of 
Congress  have  so  far  humbled  themselves,  as  to  pledge 
themselves  on  this  floor  to  keep  it  down.  National 
political  conventions  promise  to  discountenance,  and 
even  to  resist,  the  agitation  of  slavery,  both  in  and  out 
of  Congress.  Commerce  and  politics  are  as  afraid  of 
this  agitation,  as  Macbeth  was  of  the  ghost  of  Banquo  ; 


114  THE   XEBKASKA   BILL. 

and  many  titled  divines,  taking  their  cue  from  com 
merce  and  politics,  and  being  no  less  servile  than  mer 
chants  and  demagogues,  do  what  they  can  to  keep  the 
slavery  question  out  of  sight.  But  all  is  of  no  avail. 
The  saucy  slavery  question  will  not  mind  them.  To 
repress  it  in  one  quarter,  is  only  to  have  it  burst  forth 
more  prominently  in  another  quarter.  If  you  hold  it 
back  here,  it  will  break  loose  there,  and  rush  forward 
with  an  accumulated  force,  that  shall  amply  revenge 
for  all  its  detention.  And  this  is  not  strange,  when  we 
consider  how  great  is  the  power  of  truth.  It  were 
madness  for  man  to  bid  the  grass  not  to  grow,  the 
waters  not  to  run,  the  winds  not  to  blow.  It  were 
madness  for  him  to  assume  the  mastery  of  the  elements 
of  the  physical  world.  But  more  emphatically  were  it 
madness  for  him  to  attempt  to  hold  in  his  puny  fist  the 
forces  of  the  moral  world.  Canute's  folly,  in  setting 
bounds  to  the  sea,  was  wisdom  itself,  compared  with 
the  so  much  greater  folly  of  attempting  to  subjugate 
the  moral  forces.  Now,  the  power  which  is,  ever  and 
anon,  throwing  up  the  slavery  question  into  our  un 
willing  and  affrighted  faces,  is  Truth.  The  passion- 
blinded  and  the  infatuated  may  not  discern  this  mighty 
agent.  Nevertheless,  Truth  lives  and  reigns  forever; 
and  she  will  be,  continually,  tossing  up  unsettled  ques 
tions.  We  must  bear  in  mind,  too,  that  every  question, 
which  has  not  been  disposed  of  in  conformity  with  her 
requirements,  and  which  has  not  been  laid  to  repose 


THE   NEBRASKA   BILL. 


on  her  own  blessed  bosom,  is  an  unsettled  question. 
Hence,  slavery  is  an  unsettled  question;    and  must 
continue  such,  until  it  shall  have  fled  forever  from  the 
presence  of  liberty.     It  must  be  an  entirely  unsettled 
question,  because,  not  only  is  it  not  in  harmony  with 
truth,  but  there  is  not  one  particle  of  truth  in  it. 
Slavery  is  the  baldest  and  biggest  lie  on  earth.     In 
reducing  man  to  a  chattel,  it  denies  that  man  is  man  ; 
and,  in  denying,  that  man  is  man,  it  denies,  that  God 
is  God—  for,  in  His  own  image,  made  He  man—  the 
black  man  and  the  red  man,  as  well  as  the  white  man- 
Distorted  as  are  our  minds  by  prejudice,  and  shrivell 
as  are  our  souls  by  the  spirit  of  caste,  this  essential 
equality  of  the  varieties  of  the  human  fcmily  may  not 
be  apparent  to  us  all.     ^ere  we  delivered  from  this 
prejudice,  and  this  spirit,  much  of  the  darkness,  which 
now  obscures  our  vision,  would  be  scattered.     In  pro 
portion  as  we  obey  the  truth,  are  we  able  to  discern  the 
truth.     And  if  all  that  is  wrong  within  us,  were  made 
ricrht,  not  only  would  our  darkness  give  place  to  a 
cloudless  light,  but,  like  the  angel  of  the  Apocalypse, 
we  should  stand  in  the  sun. 

But  to  my  argument.  I  am  opposed  to  the  bill  for 
organizing  the  Territories  of  Nebraska  and  Kansas, 
which  has  come  to  us  from  the  Senate,  because,  in  the 
first  place,  it  insults  colored  men,  and  the  Maker  of  ; 
men.  by  limiting  suffrage  to  white  men.  I  am  opposed 
to  it  because,  in  the  second  place,  it  limits  suffrage  to 


116  THE   NEBRASKA  BILL. 

persons,  who  have  acquired  citizenship.  The  man, 
who  comes  to  us  from  a  foreign  land,  and  declares  his 
intentions  to  make  his  home  among  us,  and  acts  in  har 
mony  with  such  declaration,  is  well  entitled  to  vote 
with  us.  He  has  given  one  great  evidence  of  possess 
ing  an  American  heart,  which  our  native  could  not 
give.  For,  whilst  our  native  .became  an  American  by 
the  accident  of  birth,  the  emigrant  became  one  by 
choice.  For,  -whilst  our  native  may  be  an  American, 
not  from  any  preference  for  America,  the  emigrant  has 
proved,  that  he  prefers  our  country  to  every  other. 

I  am  opposed  to  the  bill,  in  the  third  place,  because, 
it  is  so  drawn,  as  to  convey  the  deceptive  idea,  (I  do 
not  say  intentionally  deceptive,)  that  the  bill  recognizes 
the  doctrine  of  non-intervention.  I  call  it  deceptive 
idea :  for,  in  point  of  fact,  the  bill  does  not  recognize 
the  doctrine  of  non-intervention.  It  dictates  to  the 
territories  the  form  of  their  government,  and  denies  to 
them  the  appointing  of  their  principal  officers.  The 
bill  is,  itself,  therefore,  the  most  emphatic  intervention. 
One  hundredth  as  much  intervention  on  the  part  of  the 
Federal  Government  with  a  State  Government  would 
be  condemned  as  outrageous  and  intolerable  interven 
tion. 

But  I  must  be  frank,  and  admit,  that,  if  the  bill  did 
really  recognize  the  doctrine  of  non-intervention,  I 
should  still  be  opposed  to  it — ay,  and  for  that  very  rea 
son.  This  whole  doctrine  of  Congressional  non-inter- 


XTHE   NEBKASKA   BILL.  117 

vention  with,  our  territories  I  regard  as  perfectly  absurd. 
Congressional  intervention  with  them  is  an  imperative 
and  unavoidable  duty.  The  reasoning  to  this  end  is 
simple  and  irresistible.  The  people  of  the  United 
States  acquire  a  territory.  Being  theirs,  they  are  re 
sponsible  for  its  conduct  and  character: — and,  being 
thus  responsible,  they  not  only  have  the  right,  but 
are  absolutely  bound,  to  govern  the  territory.  So  long 
as  the  territory  is  theirs,  they  can  no  more  abdicate  sov 
ereignty  over  it  than  a  State  can  abdicate  sovereignty 
over  one  of  its  counties.  But  the  people  of  the  United 
States  govern  through  Congress ;  and,  hence,  in  respect 
to  what  is  the  people's  there  must  be  Congressional  in 
tervention.  In  the  nature  of  the  case,  this  must  be  so. 
But  the  Constitution  also  shows,  that  it  must  be  so. 
The  Constitution  declares  the  fact  of  the  government 
of  the  Nation  by  itself;  and  it  also  recognizes  the  fact 
of  the  government  of  a  State  by  itself.  But,  nowhere, 
does  it  so  much,  as  hint  at  the  government  of  a  territory 
by  itself.  On  the  contrary,  it  expressly  subjects  the  re 
gulation  or  government  of  territories,  to  Congress,  or, 
in  other  words,  to  the  whole  people  of  the  United 
States. 

I  add,  incidently,  that,  in  the  light  of  the  fact  of  the 
American  people's  responsibility  for  the  conduct  and 
character  of  their  territories,  it  is  absurd  to  claim,  that 
New-Mexico  and  Utah  are  to  be  exempt  from  slavery, 
because  the  Mexican  Government  had  abolished  slavery. 


118  THE  NEBEASKA   BILL. 

Whether  there  can  be  legal  slavery  in  those  territories 
turns  solely  on  the  character  of  the  Constitution — turns 
solely  on  the  question,  whether  that  paper  is  anti-slavery 
or  pro-slavery.  Again,  in  the  light  of  this  same  fact, 
we  see  how  absurd  it  is  to  claim,  that  there  could,  under 
the  continued  force  of  the  French  or  Spanish  laws,  be 
slavery  in  the  territory  of  Louisiana,  after  we  had  ac 
quired  it.  If,  after  such  acquisition,  there  was,  or  could 
be,  legal  slavery  in  the  territory,  it  was  solely  because 
the  Constitution — the  only  law,  which  then  attached  to 
the  territory — authorized  it.  What,  if  when  we  had 
acquired  the  territory,  there  had  been  in  it,  among  the 
creatures  of  French,  or  Spanish,  or  other  law,  the  sut 
tee,  or  cannibalism — would  it  not  have  been  held,  that 
these  abominations  were  repugnant  to  the  Constitution, 
and,  therefore,  without  legal  existence  ?  Certainly. 

I  spoke  x)f  the  Constitution,  as  the  only  law,  which 
attaches  to  our  territories.  I  was  justified  in  this,  be 
cause  it  is  the  only  law  of  the  people  of  the  United 
States,  when  they  are  taken  as  a  whole,  or  a  unit.  When 
regarded  in  sections,  they  have  other  laws  also.  The 
people  of  a  State  have  the  laws  of  their  State,  as  well 
as  the  laws  of  their  Nation.  But,  I  repeat  it,  the  peo 
ple  of  the  United  States,  when  viewed  as  one,  have  no 
other  law  than  the  Constitution.  Their  Congress  and 
Judiciary  can  know  no  other  law.  The  statutes  of  the 
one  and  the  decisions  of  the  other  must  be  but  applica 
tions  and  interpretations  of  this  one  organic  law. 


THE   NEBKASKA   BILL.  119 

Another  incidental  remark,  is,  that  it  is  wrong  to 
charge  the  opponents  of  this  bill  with  denying  and  dis 
honoring  the  doctrine  of  ' '  popular  sovereignty."  Hold 
ing,  as  we  do,  that  to  the  people— the  whole  people— 
of  the  United  States  belong  both  the  lands  and  the  sove 
reignty  of  their  territories,  we  insist,  that  to  shut  them 
out  from  governing  their  territories,  would  be  to  deny 
and  dishonor  the  doctrine  of  "popular  sovereignty." 
It  is  the  friends  of  the  bill,  who,  provided  it  is,  as  they 
claim,  a  bill  for  non-intervention,  that  are  to  be  charged 
with  violating  the  doctrine  of  "  popular  sovereignty," 
and  the  principles  and  genius  of  democracy.  I  close, 
under  this  head,  with  saying,  that  should  real  non-in 
tervention  obtain  in  regard  to  these  territories,  it  would 
be  a  very  great  and  very  astonishing  change  from  our 
present  policy.  The  inhabitants  of  a  territory  have  no 
vote  in.  Congress.  Nevertheless,  real  non-intervention 
would  vest  them  with  the  exclusive  disposal  of  import 
ant  affairs,  which  are,  now,  at  the  exclusive  disposal  of 
Congress.  It  would  compensate  them  for  their  present 
political  disabilities  with  an  amount  of  political  power 
greatly  exceeding  that  enjoyed  by  an  equal  handful  of 
the  people  of  a  State. 

To  prevent  misapprehension  of  my  views,  I  add,  that 
I  am  not  opposed  to  making  inhabitants  of  the  territory 
officers  of  the  territory.  As  far  as  practicable,  I  would 
have  none  others  for  its  officers.  But,  whilst  the  ter 
ritory  is  the  nation's,  all  its  officers  should  be  acknow- 
to  "hp  officers  and  servants  of  the  nation. 


120  THE  NEBKASKA  BILL. 

I  proceed  to  say,  that  I  am  opposed  to  this  bill,  in 
the  fourth  place,  because  it  looks  to  the  existence  of 
slavery  in  these  territories,  and  provides  safeguards  for 
it.  In  other  words,  Congress  does,  by  the  terms  of  the 
bill,  open  the  door  for  slavery  to  enter  these  territories. 
The  right  of  Congress  to  do  so  I  deny.  I  deny  it,  how 
ever,  not  because  the  compromise  of  1820  denies  it. 
Believing  that  compromise  to  be  invalid,  I  cannot  hon 
estly  claim  anything  under  it.  I  disclaim  all  rights 
under  it,  for  the  simple  reason,  that  a  compromise  con 
ceived  in  sin  and  brought  forth  in  iniquity,  can  impart 
no  rights — for  the  simple  reason,  that  a  compromise, 
which  annihilates  rights,  can  not  create  rights.  I  admit, 
that  the  compromise  of  1820  concedes  the  indestructi- 
bleness  of  manhood  north  of  the  line  of  36°  30',  except 
ing  in  Missouri.  But,  on  the  other  hand,  it  atones  for 
this  concession  to  truth  and  justice  by  impliedly  leaving 
men  south  of  that  line,  and  in  Missouri,  to  be  classed 
with  brutes  and  things.  I  admit,  too,  that -they,  who 
are  enjoying  the  share  of  slavery  under  this  compro 
mise,  and  who,  now,  that  freedom  was  about  to  enter 
into  the  enjoyment  of  her  share  under  it — I  admit,  I  say, 
that  they  are  estopped  from  joining  me  in  pronouncing 
the  Missouri  compromise  invalid.  They  must  first  sur 
render  their  share  under  the  compromise — they  must 
first  make  restitution  to  Freedom — ere  they  can,  with 
clean  hands  and  unblushing  faces,  ask  her  to  forego  the 
enjoyment  of  her  share.  "  But  this  condition  is  imprac- 


THE   NEBRASKA   BILL.  121 

ticable !"  will  some  of  my  hearers  say.  Oh,  no !  nothing 
is  impracticable,  that  is  right.  Exclude  slavery  from 
Missouri  and  Arkansas  for  thirty-four  years  ;  and  then 
freedom  and  slavery  will  be  on  an  equal  footing,  and 
they  can  make  a  new  bargain.  [Laughter.] 

Nor  do  I  deny  the  right  of  Congress  to  open  the  door 
for  slavery  into  these  territories,  because  the  compromise 
of  1850  virtually  denies  it.  I  say  that  compromise  vir 
tually  denies  it,  because  it  distinctly  and  approvingly 
recognizes  the  compromise  of  1820.  The  compromise 
of  1850  is  as  rotten  as  the  compromise  of  1820 ;  and  as 
incapable  of  imparting  rights.  And  here  let  me  say, 
that  I  rejoice  to  see  the  pro-slavery  party  pouring  ex 
press  contempt  on  the  compromise  of  1820,  and  virtual 
contempt  on  the  compromise  of  1850.  And  why  should 
not  all  men  pour  contempt  upon  these  compromises,  and 
upon  all  other  compromises,  which  aim  "  to  split  the 
difference"  between  God  and  the  devil  ?  [Great  laugh 
ter.]  By  the  way,  we  have  striking  proof,  in  the  in 
stance  of  this  bill,  that,  in  the  case  of  such  compromises, 
God's  share  and  all  are,  in  the  end,  very  like  to  be 
claimed  for  the  devil.  [Eenewed  laughter.] 

I  have  said  on  what  grounds  it  is  not,  that  I  deny 
the  right  of  Congress  to  open  the  door  for  slavery  into 
these  territories.  I  will  now  say  on  what  ground  it  is. 
I  deny  it  on  the  ground,  that  the  Constitution,  the  only 
law  of  the  territories,  is  not  in  favor  of  slavery,  and  that 
slavery  cannot  be  setup  under  it.  If  there  can  be  law- 
6 


122  THE   NEBRASKA   BILL. 

ful  slavery  in  the  States,  nevertheless  there  cannot  be 
in  the  territories. 

In  the  fifth  and  last  place,  I  am  opposed  to  the  bill, 
because  it  allows,  that  there  may  be  slavery  in  the 
States,  which  shall  be  formed  from  these  territories. 

Hitherto,  when  the  slavery  question  has  been  brought 
up  in  Congress,  it  has  been  alleged,  (I  say  not  how 
truly  or  untruly,)  that  the  anti-slavery  party  has 
brought  it  up,  and  for  the  purpose  of  checking  slavery. 
But  now,  it  is,  confessedly  on  all  hands,  brought  up  by 
the  pro-slavery  party,  and  for  the  purpose  of  extending 
slavery.  In  this  instance,  the  pro-slavery  party  is, 
manifestly,  the  instrument,  which  truth  has  wielded  to 
subserve  her  purpose  of  reawakening  the  public  mind 
to  the  demands  and  enormities  of  slavery.  Most  sin 
cerely  do  I  rejoice,  that  the  pro-slavery  party  is  respon 
sible  for  the  present  agitation. 

A  MEMBER.     I  do  not  admit,  that  it  is. 

Mr.  SMITH.  Strange !  Here  is  a  movement  for 
the  immense  extension  of  slavery.  Of  course,  it  is  not 
the  work  of  the  anti-slavery  party.  And  if  the  honor 
able  member,  who  has  just  interrupted  me,  is  author 
ized  to  speak  for  the  pro-slavery  party,  it  is  not  the 
work  of  that  party  either.  I  took  it  for  granted,  that 
the  pro-slavery  party  did  it.  But,  it  seems  it  did  not. 
It  puts  on  the  innocent  air  of  a  Macbeth,  and  looks  me 
in  the  face,  and  exclaims :  "  Thou  canst  not  say  I  did 


THE  NEBRASKA  BILL.  128 

it !"  [Laughter.]  "Well,  if  neither  the  anti-slavery 
party,  nor  the  pro-slavery  party,  did  it,  who  was  it  then 
that  did  it  ?  It  follows,  necessarily,  that  it  must  be  the 
work  of  the  Lord,  or  the  devil.  [Laughter.]  But,  it 
cannot  be  the  work  of  the  Lord — for  the  good  book 
tells  us :  "  Where  the  spirit  of  the  Lord  is,  there  is  lib 
erty" — liberty,  not  slavery.  So,  this  Nebraska  business 
must  be  the  work  of  the  devil.  [Great  laughter.]  But 
logical  as  is  this  conclusion,  I  am,  nevertheless,  too  po 
lite  to  press  it,  I  prefer  to  repudiate  the  alternative, 
that  puts  the  responsibility  on  the  Lord  or  the  devil ; 
and  to  return  to  my  original  assertion,  that  the  pro-sla 
very  party,  and  not  the  anti-slavery  party,  is  responsi 
ble  for  the  present  agitation.  Do  not  understand,  that 
I  would  not  have  the  anti-slavery  party  agitate.  I 
would  have  it  agitate,  and  agitate,  and  agitate  forever. 
I  believe,  that  the  agitation  of  the  elements  of  the 
moral  world  is  as  essential  to  moral  health,  as  is 
the  agitation  of  the  elements  of  the  physical  world 
to  physical  health.  I  believe  in  the  beautiful  motto : 
"  The  agitation  of  thought  is  the  beginning  of  truth." 
I  was  very  happy  to  hear  the  honorable  gentleman 
of  Pennsylvania,  [Mr.  Wright,]  express  his  faith 
and  pleasure  in  agitation.  Not  less  happy  was  I  to 
hear  the  honorable  gentleman  of  North-Carolina,  [Mr. 
Clingman,]  approve  of  the  discussion  of  Slavery. 
Such  good  abolition  doctrine  from  such  surprising 
sources  was  very  grateful  to  me.  Perhaps,  these  gen- 


124  THE  NEBRASKA  BILL. 

tlemen  will  continue  to  move  forward  in  that  blessed 
upward  way,  on  which  they  have  happily  entered; 
and,  perhaps,  ere  the  session  shall  close,  they  will  have 
reached  that  table-land  of  abolition,  on  which  it  is  my 
privilege  to  stand.  Let  me  assure  them,  for  the  pur 
pose  of  cheering  them  onward,  that  when  they  shall  ar 
rive  there,  they  shall  not  lack  my  warm  greetings 
and  the  cordial  grasp  of  my  hand.  [Great  laughter.] 
Sir,  you  must  permit  me  to  indulge  some  hope  of  the 
conversion  of  these  gentlemen.  Indeed,  when  I  heard 
the  honorable  gentleman  of  North-Carolina  speak  of 
himself  as  "  an  independent" — as  a  party  of  one — as  in 
that  lone  condition,  in  which  he  had  so  recently  heard 
me  say,  that  I  find  myself— was  I  not  at  liberty  to  ima 
gine,  that  he  was  throwing  out  a  sly,  delicate  hint  to 
my  ear,  that  he  would  like  to  "join  teams"  with  me,  and 
so  make  up  a  party  of  two  ?  [Eepeated  roars  of  laugh 
ter.]  I  do  not  forget,  that,  at  the  close  of  his  speech, 
he  said  some  very  hard  things  against  us  naughty  abo 
litionists.  But  how  could  I  be  sure,  that  he  did  not  say 
these  hard  things  for  no  other  purpose  than  to  blind  all 
around  him,  save,  of  course,  my  own  apprehensive,  be 
cause  kindred  and  sympathizing,  spirit,  to  that  fraternal 
union  with  me,  which  I  have  supposed  his  heart  was 
then  meditating  ? 

I  said,  a  little  while  ago,  that  I  rejoice,  that  the  pro- 
slavery  party  is  responsible  for  the  present  agitation. 
T  add,  that  I  am  half  reconciled  to  this  attempt  to  extend 


THE   NEBEASKA  BILL.  125 

the  dominion  of  slavery,  because  it  affords  us  so  inviting 
an  opportunity  to  inquire  into  the  title  of  slavery.  If 
my  neighbor  tries  to  rob  me  of  my  farm,  he,  at  least, 
affords  me  an  occasion  for  inquiring  into  the  tenure,  by 
•which  he  holds  his  own  farm.  Freedom  having  been 
driven  by  slavery,  until  she  has  surrendered  to  her 
pursuer  nine  new  States  ;  and  until  slavery  claims,  as 
we  see  in  the  present  bill,  equal  right  with  herself  to 
overspread  all  the  unorganized  territory  of  the  nation  ; 
it  is,  in  my  judgment,  high  time  for  her  to  stop,  and  to 
turn  about,  and  to  look  slavery  in  the  face,  and  to  push 
back  the  war — ay,  and  to  drive  the  aggressor  to  the 
wall,  provided  she  shall  find,  that  slavery,  in  all  its  pro 
gress,  and  history,  is  nothing  but  an  aggression  upon 
liberty  and  law,  and  upon  human  and  divine  rights ; 
and  that,  in  truth,  it  has  no  title  to  any  existence 
whatever,  on  any  terms  whatever,  anywhere  whatever. 
This  is  a  proper  stage  of  my  argument  for  saying,  that 
we  all  know  enough  of  freedom  and  slavery  to  know, 
that  they  cannot  live  together  permanently.  One 
must  conquer  the  other.  American  slavery  lacks  but 
two  things  to  make  sure  of  her  victory  over  American 
liberty  ;  and,  from  present  indications,  she  is  determin 
ed  to  lack  them  no  longer.  One  of  these  two  things  is 
its  conceded  right  to  overspread  all  our  unorganized 
territory ;  and  the  other  is  its  conceded  right  to  carry 
slaves  through  the  free  States.  Let  slavery  succeed  in 
these  two  respects  : — let  the  bill,  we  are  now  consider- 


126  THE  NEBKASKA  BILL. 

ing,  become  a  statute  ;  and  let  the  final  decision  in  the 
Lemmon  case*  sustain  the  claim  to  carry  slaves  through 
the  free  States — ay,  and  even  to  drive  conies  of  slaves 
through  them,  whip-in-hand ;  thus  breaking  down  the 
public  sentiment  of  those  States  against  slavery ;  and 
debauching  and  wasting  it  by  familiarizing  it  with  the 
demands  and  exhibitions  of  slavery  ; — and  then,  I  ad 
mit,  the  way  will  be  clear  for  slavery  to  make  a  quick 
and  easy  conquest  of  liberty. 

I,  again,  acknowledge  my  partial  reconcilement  to 
this  attempt  of  slavery  to  get  more — to  this  bold  push 
for  all,  that  is  left,  so  far  as  unorganized  territory  is 
concerned.  We  have  now  the  best  of  opportunities  for 
trying  the  title  of  slavery,  not  only  to  more — but,  also, 
to  what  it  already  had.  And,  now,  if  slavery  shall 
come  off  as  badly  as  the  dog,  who,  in  opening  his 
mouth  to  seize  another  piece  of  meat,  lost,  in  the  deceit 
ful  and  shadow-casting  stream,  the  piece  he  already  had, 
it  will  have  no  one  to  blame  for  its  folly,  but  its  own 
voracious  self.  It  should  have  been  content  with  the 
big  share — the  lion's  share — which  it  already  had. 

But  to  return  from  this  digression.     I  said,  that  I  am 

*  Mr.  Lemmon  was  emigrating,  some  eighteen  months  ago,  with  his 
slaves,  from  Virginia  to  Texas.  The  vessel  touched  at  New-York ;  and 
a  judicial  decision  in  favor  of  the  claim  of  the  slaves  to  freedom  was 
promptly  obtained,  on  the  ground,  that  the  State  of  New-York  had 
abolished  slavery.  The  State  of  Virginia  is  now  intent  on  getting  this 
decision  reversed. 


THE   NEBRASKA   BILL.  127 

opposed  to  the  bill,  because  it  allows,  tliat  there  may  be 
slavery  in  the  States,  which  shall  be  formed  from  these 
territories.  Why,  however,  should  I  be,  therefore,  op 
posed  to  it  ?  I  will,  without  delay,  come  to  the  reason 
for  my  opposition.  My  time,  being  so  precious,  because 
so  limited,  I  will  waste  none  of  it  in  apologies,  circum 
locutions,  or  skirmishes.  But  I  will,  at  once,  "  take  the 
bull  by  the  horns,"  and  declare,  that  I  deny  the  right  of 
Congress  to  look  to  the  existence  of  slavery  in  the 
States,  that  shall  be  formed  within  these  territories,  be 
cause  I  deny,  that  there  can  be  Constitutional  slavery 
in  any  of  the  States  of  the  American  Union — future 
States,  or  present  States— new  or  old.  I  hold,  that  the 
Constitution,  not  only  authorizes  no  slavery,  but  per 
mits  no  slavery;  not  only  creates  no  slavery  in  any 
part  of  the  land,  but  abolishes  slavery  in  every  part  of 
the  land.  In  other  words,  I  hold,  that  there  is  no  law 
Tor  American  slavery, 

I  had  not  intended  a  moment's  further  delay  in  enter 
ing  upon  my  argument  to  prove,  that  the  Constitution 
calls  for  the  suppression  of  all  American  slavery.  But 
I  must,  before  entering  upon  it,  beseech  the  Committee 
to  hold  no  other  member  of  Congress  responsible  for  it. 
Let  the  reproach  of  this  argument — of  this  foolish  argu 
ment,  if  you  please — nay,  of  this  insane  argument,  if 
you  prefer  that  epithet — fall  on  myself  only.  Blame 
no  other  member  of  Congress  for  it.  I  stand  alone.  I 
am  the  first,  and,  perhaps,  I  shall  be  the  last,  to  declare 


128  THE   NEBRASKA   BILL. 

within  these  walls,  that  there  is  no  law  for  slavery.  I 
say,  that  I  stand  alone.  And,  yet,  I  am  not  alone. 
Truth  is  with  me.  I  feel  her  inspirations.  She  glows 
in  my  soul :  and  I  stand  in  her  strength. 

THEEE  IS  NO  LAW  FOR  AMERICAN  SLAVERY. 

Mansfield's  decision  in  the  Somerset  case  estab 
lished  the  fact,  that  there  was  no  law  for  slavery  in 
England  in  1772  : — and  if  none  in  England,  then  none 
in  America.  For,  by  the  terms  of  their  charters,  the 
Colonies  could  have  no  laws  repugnant  to  the  laws  of 
England.  Alas,  that  this  decision  was  not  followed 
up  by  the  assertion  of  the  right  of  every  American 
slave  to  liberty !  Had  it  been,  then,  would  our  land, 
this  day,  be  bright  and  blessed  with  liberty,  instead  of 
dark  and  cursed  with  slavery.  Alas,  that  the  earlier 
decision  than  Mansfield's  was  not  thus  followed  up ! 
This  earlier  decision  was  of  the  Superior  Court  of  Mas 
sachusetts,  and  was  of  the  same  character  with  Mans 
field's. — [James  vs.  Laclimere,  "Washburn,  202.]  We 
are  not  at  liberty  to  regard  this  decision  of  the  Court  of 
Massachusetts  as  wrong,  because  Massachusetts  slavery 
was  not  abolished  in  consequence  of  it.  It  is  no  more 
wrong,  because  of  that  fact,  than  is  Mansfield's,  be 
cause  of  the  like  fact.  Slavery  in  England  survived 
Mansfield's  decision.  Even  seven  years  after  it,  and 
advertisements,  such  as  this,  could  be  found  in  English 
newspapers : 


THE  NEBRASKA  BILL.  129 

"  To  be  sold  by  auction  at  George  Dunbar's  office, 
on  Thursday  next,  the  20th  instant,  at  1  o'clock,  a  black 
boy,  about  fourteen  years  of  age,  etc.  Liverpool,  Oct. 
15, 1779." 

There  was  no  law  for  American  slavery,  after  the 
Declaration  of  Independence  was  adopted.  Had  there 
been  any  before,  this  paper  swept  it  all  away.  Chief 
Justice  Shaw  suggests,  that  it  was  this  paper,  which 
abolished  slavery  in  Massachusetts. — [Commonwealth  vs. 
Thomas  AvesJ]  No  less  fatal  was  it,  however,  to  the 
legality  of  slavery  in  other  parts  of  the  nation.  The 
Declaration  of  Independence  is  the  highest  human 
authority  in  American  politics.  It  is  customary  to 
trace  back  the  origin  of  our  national  existence-  and  our 
American  Union  to  the  Federal  Constitution,  or  to 
the  Articles  of  Confederation.  But  our  national 
existence  and  our  American  Union  had  their  birth 
in  the  Declaration  of  Independence.  The  putting 
forth  of  this  paper  was  the  first  sovereign  act  of  the 
American  people — their  first  national  and  authoritative 
utterance.  The  Declaration  of  Independence  was  the 
declaration  of  the  fact  of  the  American  Union :  and 
to  that  paper  preeminently  are  we  to  look  for  the  causes, 
character  and  objects  of  the  American  Union.  It  was 
for  a  present,  and  not  for  a  prospective,  Union — for  a 
Union  already  decided  on,  and  not  a  contingent  Union — 
that  our  fathers  went  through  a  seven  years'  war.  It  is 
6* 


130  THE  NEBBASKA  BILL. 

noteworthy,  that  the  object  of  the  Constitution,  as  set 
forth  by  itself,  is  not  to  originate  a  Union,  but  "to 
form  a  more  perfect  Union" — that  is,  to  improve  on  an 
already  existing  Union.  The  Articles  of  Confedera 
tion  and  the  Federal  Constitution  were  but  expedients 
for  promoting  the  perpetuity,  and  multiplying  and 
securing  the  happy  fruits,  of  this  Union.  Not  only  is 
it  not  true,  that  the  Articles  of  Confederation  and  the 
Federal  Constitution  are  paramount  to  the  Declaration 
of  Independence,  but  it  is  true,  that  the  Congress  of  the 
Confederation  and  the  Convention,  which  framed  the 
Constitution,  derived  all  their  legitimacy  and  authority 
from  the  Declaration  of  Independence.  You  might  as 
well  talk  of  supplanting  the  Bible  with  the  farthing 
Tract  written  to  expound  it,  as  talk  of  supplanting  the 
Declaration  of  Independence  with  any  subsequent 
paper.  Truly  did  one  of  the  eminent  statesmen  [Gen. 
Eoot]  of  my  State  say  :  "  That  the  Declaration  of  In 
dependence  is  the  fundamental  law  of  the  land  in  all 
those  States,  which  claimed  or  admitted,  that  that  in 
strument  was  framed  by  their  agents ;"  and  truly  did 
another  of  them  [John  C.  Spencer]  say,  that  it  is 
"  the  corner-stone  of  our  Confederacy,  and  is  above  all 
Constitutions  and  all  Laws."  Yes,  the  Declaration  of 
Independence  is  the  very  soul  of  every  legitimate  Ame 
rican  Consitution — the  Constitution  of  Constitutions — 
the  Law  of  Laws. 

I  repeat  it — if  there  was  legal  slavery  in  this  land 


THE  NEBRASKA   BILL.  131 

before  the  Declaration  of  Independence  was  adopted, 
there,  nevertheless,  could  be  none  after.  The  great 
truth  of  this  paper  is,  that  all  men  are  created  equal, 
and  have  inalienable  rights.  Does  this  paper  speak 
of  Civil  Government  as  necessary  ?  It  does  so,  be 
cause  this  great  truth  makes  it  necessary.  It  does 
so,  because  it  is  necessary  to  preserve  these  rights. 
Does  this  paper  claim  the  right  to  alter  or  abolish  the 
Government  ?  It  claims  it,  for  the  sake  of  this  great 
truth.  It  claims  it,  in  order  to  provide  better  security 
for  these  rights. 

I  do  not  forget,  that  the  Declaration  of  Independence 
has  fallen  into  disrepute  among  the  degenerate  sons  of 
the  men,  who  adopted  it.  They  ridicule  it,  and  call  it 
"  a  fanfaronade  of  nonsense."  It  will  be  ridiculed,  in 
proportion  as  American  slavery  increases.  It  will  be 
respected,  in  proportion  as  American  slavery  declines. 
Even  members  of  Congress  charge  it  with  saying,  that 
men  are  born  with  equal  strength,  equal  beauty,  and 
equal  brains.  For  my  own  part,  I  can  impute  no 
such  folly  to  Thomas  Jefferson  and  his  fellow-laborers. 
I  understand  the  Declaration  of  Independence  to  say, 
that  men  are  born  with  an  equal  right  to  use  what  is 
respectively  theirs.  To  illustrate  its  meaning,  at  this 
point : — if  I  am  born  with  but  one  foot,  and  one  eye, 
and  an  organization  capable  of  receiving  but  one  idea, 
I  have  a  right  to  use  my  one  foot,  and  one  eye,  and 
one  idea,  equal  with  the  right  of  my  neighbor  to  use 
his  two  feet,  and  two  eyes,  and  two  thousand  ideas. 


132  THE   NEBRASKA  BILL. 

The  enunciation  of  this  great  centre  truth  of  the 
Declaration  of  Independence,  would  have  justified 
every  American  slave,  at  the  time  of  that  enunciation, 
in  claiming  his  liberty.  Suppose  that,  after  the  adop 
tion  of  the  Declaration  of  Independence,  an  American 
patriot  had  been  seized  by  a  British  force,  and  put  on 
trial  for  rebellion  against  the  King,  would  not  that  pa 
per  have  justified  him  in  calling  on  his  countrymen  to 
deliver  him?  Certainly;  for  that  paper  asserts  the 
right  to  break  away  from  his  allegiance  to  the  King, 
and  pledges  the  "lives,  fortunes,  and  sacred  honor  "  of 
his  countrymen  to  maintain  that  right.  But  suppose, 
that,  after  the  adoption  of  the  Declaration  of  Inde 
pendence,  an  American  slave  had  asserted  his  right  to 
liberty,  might  he  not,  as  well  as  the  patriot  referred  to, 
have  called  on  his  countrymen  to  acknowledge  and  de 
fend  his  right  ?  Certainly ;  and  a  thousand  fold  more 
emphatically.  For  the  right  of  the  patriot  to  dissolve 
his  allegiance  to  the  Crown  is  but  a  deduction  from  the 
great  centre  truth  of  the  paper,  that  all  men  are  created 
equal,  and  have  inalienable  rights.  But  the  title  of  the 
slave  to  his  liberty — that  is,  to  one  of  these  inalienable 
rights — is  this  great  centre  truth  itself.  The  title  of 
the  slave  to  his  liberty  is  the  great  fountain-head  right. 
But  the  title  of  the  patriot  to  be  rescued  from  his  peril 
is  only  a  derivation  from  that  fountain-head  right. 

We  add,  as  a  reason,  why  this  great  centre  truth  of 
human  equality  and  inalienable  right  to  liberty  is  en- 


THE  NEBRASKA  BILL.  138 

titled  to  supremacy  in  all  the  shaping  and  interpreta 
tion  of  American  politics,  that,  but  for  it,  and  for  the 
place  it  occupies  in  the  Declaration  of  Independence, 
there  would  have  been  no  American  Constitution,  and 
no  American  nation,  and  no  American  liberty.  But 
for  the  commanding  principle  and  mighty  inspiration 
of  this  great  centre  truth,  the  colonists  could  not  have 
been  aroused  to  their  glorious  achievement.  It  was  in 
hoc  signo — it  was  by  this  sign — that  our  fathers  con 
quered.  Again:  but  for  this  commanding  principle, 
and  this  mighty  inspiration,  the  aid — the  indispensable 
aid — that  came  to  us  from  foreign  shores,  would  not 
have  come.  Said  Lafayette  to  Thomas  Clarkson : 
"I  would  never  have  drawn  my  sword  in  the  cause  of 
America,  if  I  could  have  conceived,  that  thereby  I  was 
founding  a  land  of  slavery."  And  there  was  Kosci- 
USKO,  at  whose  fall  "Freedom  shrieked,"  and  who 
provided  by  the  will,  written  by  himself,  that  his  pro 
perty  in  America  should  be  used  by  his  anti-slavery 
friend,  Thomas  Jefferson,  in  liberating  and  educat 
ing  African  slaves.  Surely,  he  would  not,  with  his 
eyes  open,  have  fought  to  create  a  power,  that  should 
be  wielded  in  behalf  of  African  slavery!  Oh,  how 
cruel  and  mean  a  fraud  on  those,  who  fought  for  Ame 
rican  liberty,  to  use  that  liberty  for  establishing  and 
extending  American  slavery  1 

But  we  pass  on  from  the  Declaration  of  Independence 
to  the  Federal  Constitution,  and  suppose,  for  the  sake 


134:  THE  NEBRASKA  BILL. 

of  the  argument,  that  slavery  survived  the  Declaration 
of  Independence.  Now,  our  first  question  is  not  what 
is  the  character  of  the  Constitution,  in  respect  to  slavery, 
but  what,  from  the  circumstances  of  the  case,  might 
we  reasonably  expect  to  find  its  character,  in  this  re 
spect.  Its  reasonably  expected  character  may  be 
thought  by  many  to  shed  light  upon  its  actual  charac 
ter.  Looking  at  the  circumstances  of  tne  case,  are  we 
to  expect  to  find  the  Constitution  pro-slavery  or  anti- 
slavery  ? — made  to  uphold  slavery,  or  to  leave  it  an 
unprotected  outlaw  ? 

It  is  argued,  that  the  Constitution  must  be  on  the 
side  of  slavery,  for  the  reason,  that  it  did  not  specific 
ally  demand  the  instant  death  of  slavery.  There  is, 
however,  no  force  in  this  argument,  if  we  reflect,  that 
American  slavery  was,  at  that  time,  a  dying  slavery ; 
and  that,  therefore,  even  those  of  our  statesmen,  who 
were  most  opposed  to  it,  were  generally  willing  to 
leave  it  to  die  a  natural  death,  rather  than  to  force  it 
out  of  existence.  Were  a  man  condemned  to  be  hung 
— nevertheless,  if,  when  the  day  for  hanging  him  had 
arrived,  he  were  on  his  death-bed,  you  would  not  hang 
him,  but  you  would  leave  him  to  die  on  his  bed — to 
die  a  natural,  instead  of  a  violent  death.  That  our 
fathers  did  not  anticipate  the  long  continuance  of 
slavery  is  manifest  from  their  purpose  disclosed  in  the 
Preamble  of  the  Constitution  and  elsewhere,  to  set  up  a 
government,  which  should  maintain  justice  and  liberty. 


THE  NEBRASKA  BILL.  135 

They  knew,  that  no  government  could  prove  itself  ca 
pable  of  this,  if  under  the  influence,  especially  the  over 
shadowing  influence,  of  slavery. 

It  is  further  argued,  that  the  Constitution  must  be  on 
the  side  of  slavery,  because  were  it  not  on  that  side  the 
slaveholders  would  not  have  consented  to  its  adoption. 
But  they,  who  argue  thus,  confound  the  slaveholders 
of  that  day  with  the  slaveholders  of  this.  They  forget, 
that  the  slaveholders  of  that  day  breathed  the  spirit  of 
the  Declaration  of  Independence,  and  were  captivated 
by  the  doctrine  of  the  human  brotherhood.  They  for 
get,  that  the  slaveholders  of  that  day  were  impatient  to 
emancipate  their  slaves,  and  that  in  Virginia,  where  the 
number  of  slaves  was  so  much  less  than  now,  they  were 
emancipated,  at  that  period,  at  the  rate  of  a  thousand  a 
year.  They  forget,  that  there  were  Abolition  Societies 
in  slave  States,  both  before  and  after  the  year  1800. 
They  forget,  that  "Washington  and  Jefferson  were  prac 
tical  emancipationists.  They  forget,  that,  whilst  the 
slaveholders  of  this  generation  are  intent  on  perpetuat 
ing  and  extending  slavery,  the  slaveholders  of  that  gen 
eration,  studied  how  to  abolish  it,  and  rejoiced  in  the 
prospect  of  its  speedy  abolition.  They  forget,  that, 
whilst  the  slaveholders  of  this  day  are  eager  to  everspread 
our  whole  national  territory  with  slavery,  all  the  slave 
holders  of  that  day  joined  with  all  other  Americans  in 
denying  it  new  territory,  and  excluding  it  from  every 
foot  of  the  national  territory.  They  forget,  that  all  the 


136  THE  NEBKASKA  BILL. 

States,  at  that  time,  with,  the  exception  of  South-Caro 
lina  and  Georgia,  advocated  the  anti-slavery  policy ;  and 
that  even  these  two  States  could  hardly  be  said  to  have 
opposed  it.  And  what,  more  than  everything  else, 
they  should  not  forget,  is  that,  over  the  whole  length  and 
breadth  of  the  land,  slavery  was,  at  that  day,  a  confess 
ed  sin — a  sin,  it  is  true,  that  all  involved  in  it  had  not 
the  integrity  to  put  away  immediately — but  a  sin,  nev 
ertheless,  which  all  of  them  purposed  to  put  away, 
in  no  very  distant  future.  How  striking  the  contrast, 
in  this  respect,  between  the  circumstances  of  the  slave 
holder  of  that  time  and  the  slaveholder  of  this  !  Now, 
the  Bible,  both  at  the  North  and  at  the  South,  is  claim 
ed  to  be  for  slavery ;  and  now  the  church  and  church- 
ministry,  at  the  South,  do  nearly  all  go  for  slavery ;  and 
at  the  North,  do  nearly  all  apologize  for  it.  Now, 
slavery  is  right,  and  the  abolition  of  it  wrong.  Now, 
the  slaveholder  is  the  saint,  and  the  abolitionist  the  sin 
ner.  To  illustrate,  in  still  another  way,  the  absurdity 
of  inferring 'what  slaveholders  desired  and  did,  sixty  or 
seventy  years  ago,  from  what  they  desire  and  do  now : 
— the  pecuniary  motive  of  the  slaveholder  to  uphold 
slavery  is  now  very  strong.  Then,  it  was  very  weak. 
American  cane-sugar,  now  wet  with  the  tears  and  sweat 
and  blood  of  tens  of  thousands  of  slaves,  was  then 
scarcely  known.  American  cotton,  which  now  fills  the 
markets  of  the  world,  was  then  in  none  of  the  markets 
of  the  world.  Then  it  was  not  among  the  interests  of 


THE   NEBRASKA   BILL.  137 

our  country.  Now,  it  is  its  dominant  interest.  It 
sways  church  and  State  and  commerce,  and  compels  all 
of  them  to  go  for  slavery.  Then  the  price  of  the  slave, 
that  now  sells  for  a  thousand  or  fifteen  hundred  dollars, 
was  but  two  hundred  dollars. 

I  need  say  no  more  to  show  how  liable  we  are  to  mis 
interpret  the  desires  and  designs  of  our  fathers,  in  re 
gard  to  the  Constitution,  if  we  look  through  the  medium 
of  the  pro-slavery  spirit  and  interests  of  our  own  day, 
instead  of  the  medium  of  the  anti-slavery  spirit  and  in 
terests  of  their  day.  To  judge  what  character  they 
would  be  like  to  give  to  the  Constitution,  in  respect  to 
slavery,  we  must  take  our  stand-point  amidst  the  anti- 
slavery  scenes  and  influences  of  that  period,  and  not 
amidst  the  pro-slavery  scenes  and  influences,  which 
illustrate  and  reign  over  the  present. 

I  readily  admit,  that  the  slaveholders  of  the  present 
day  would  not  consent  to  the  making  of  any  other  than 
a  pro-slavery  Constitution.  I  even  admit,  that,  had  the 
making  of  the  Constitution  been  delayed  no  more  than 
a  dozen  years,  it  would,  (could  it  then  have  been  made 
at  all,) -have  been  pro-slavery.  I  make  this  admission, 
because  I  remember,  that,  during  those  dozen  years, 
Whitney's  cotton  gin,  (but  for  which  invention  Ameri 
can  slavery  would,  long  ago,  have  disappeared,)  came 
into  operation,  and  fastened  slavery  upon  our  country. 
In  the  light  of  what  I  have  said,  how  improbable  it 
is,  that  the  slaveholders  were  intent  on  having  the  Con- 


138  THE  NEBRASKA  BILL. 

stitution  made  to  uphold  slavery.  But,  in  tlie  light  of 
what  I  shall  now  say,  how  improbable  it  is  that  such  a 
Constitution  was  made.  Mr.  Madison  was  among  the 
most  influential  members  of  the  Convention,  that  fram 
ed  the  Constitution ;  and  when  he  declared,  in  the  Con 
vention,  that  he  "thought  it  wrong  to  admit  in  the 
Constitution  the  idea,  that  there  could  be  property  in 
man,"  not  one  person  objected  to  the  declaration.  In 
deed,  the  framers  of  the  Constitution,  not  only  kept  it 
clear  of  the  words  "slave"  and  "slavery,"  and  of  all  words 
of  similar  import,  but  they  obviously  determined,  that, 
if  after  ages  should  make  the  humiliating  discovery,  that 
there  had  been  slavery  in  this  land,  there,  nevertheless, 
should  be  nothing  in  the  pages  of  the  Constitution  to 
help  them  to  such  discovery.  For  instance,  the  word 
"service"  occurs  repeatedly  in  the  Constitution.  But 
only  four  days  before  the  Convention  closed  its  labors, 
the  word  "servitude"  was  struck  out  of  the  Constitution, 
and  the  word  "service"  unanimously  adopted  in  its 
place,  for  the  avowed  reason,  that  the  former  expresses 
the  condition  of  slaves,  and  the  latter  the  obligations  of 
free  persons.  I  add  the  incidental  remark,  that  if  the 
Constitution  is  responsible  for  slavery,  it  is  so,  because 
of  the  knavery,  or  ignorance,  of  its  framers.  If,  on  the 
one  hand,  notwithstanding  their  avowed  reason  for  the 
substitution  of  "service"  for  "  servitude,"  they  still  in 
tended  to  have  the  Constitution  thus  responsible,  then 
they  were  knaves : — and  if,  on  the  other,  they  honestly 


THE   NEBRASKA  BILL.  139 

intended  to  keep  the  Constitution  clear  of  this  guilty 
responsibility,  and  yet  failed  to  do  so,  then  does  such 
failure  betray  their  gross  ignorance— their  gross  igno 
rance  of  the  true  meaning,  and  fit  use,  of  words.  Hap 
pily,  for  those,  who  give  an  anti-slavery  construction  to 
the  Constitution,  they  are  under  no  necessity  and  no 
temptation  to  interpret  the  motives  and  conduct  of  its 
framers  in  the  light  of  so  odious  an  alternative.  The 
pro-slavery  party  alone  are  compelled  so  to  interpret 
them.  Now,  even  were  rt  true,  that  the  framers  of  the 
Constitution,  and  all  of  them,  too,  sought  to  smuggle 
slavery  into  it — to  get  it  into  it,  without  its  being  seen 
to  be  got  into  it — nevertheless,  how  could  they  accom 
plish  this  object,  which,  by  the  restrictions  they  had  im 
posed  on  themselves,  they  had  rendered  impracticable? 
To  work  slavery  into  the  Constitution,  and  yet  preserve 
for  the  Constitution,  that  anti-slavery  appearance,  which, 
from  the  first,  they  had  determined  it  should  wear,  and 
which  they  knew  it  must  wear,  or  be  promptly  rejected 
by  the  people,  was  as  impossible,  as  to  build  up  a  fire 
in  the  sea. 

But  we  will  remain  no  longer  outside  of  the  Constitu 
tion.  Indeed,  there  is  nothing,  and  there  can  be  nothing, 
outside  of  it,  which  can  determine,  or  in  any  wise  affect, 
its  character  on  the  subject  of  slavery.  Nothing  in  the 
history  of  the  framing,  or  adoption,  or  operation,  of  the 
Constitution,  can  be  legitimately  cited  to  prove,  that  it 
is  pro-slavery  or  anti-slavery.  The  point  is  to  be  de- 


140  THE  NEBEASKA  BILL. 

cided  by  the  naked  letter  of  the  instrument,  and  by  that 
only.  If  the  letter  is  certainly  for  slavery,  then  the 
Constitution  is  for  slavery- — otherwise  not.  I  say,  if  it 
is  certainly  for  slavery  :  I  say  so,  because  slavery  real 
izes  the  highest  possible  conception  of  radical  injustice ; 
and  because  there  is  no  more  reasonable  rule  of  inter 
pretation  than  that,  which  denies,  that  a  law  is  to  be 
construed  in  favor  of  such  injustice,  when  the  law  does 
not  in  clear  and  express  terms,  embody  and  sanction  it. 
The  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  have  adopted 
this  rule  in  these  words  :  "  Where  rights  are  infringed, 
where  fundamental  principles  are  overthrown,  where 
the  general  system  of  the  laws  is  departed  from,  the  leg 
islative  intention  must  be  expressed  with  irresistible 
clearness  to  induce  a  court  of  justice  to  suppose  a  design 
to  effect  such  objects." — 2  Oranch,  390.  The  same  en 
lightened  and  righteous  policy,  which  led  Mansfield  to 
say,  that  "  slavery  is  so  odious,  that  nothing  can  be  suf 
fered  to  support  it  but  positive  law,"  obviously  demands, 
that  no  law  shall  be  cited  for  slavery,  which  is  not  ex 
pressly  and  clearly  for  slavery. 

Much  stress  is  laid  on  the  intentions  of  the  framers 
of  the  Constitution.  But  we  are  to  make  little  more 
account  of  their  intentions  than  of  the  intentions  of  the 
scrivener,  who  is  employed  to  write  the  deed  of  the  land. 
It  is  the  intentions  of  the  adopters  of  the  Constitution, 
that  we  are  to  inquire  after  ;  and  these  we  are  to  gather 
from  the  words  of  the  Constitution,  and  not  from  the 


THE  NEBRASKA  BILL.  141 

words  of  its  framers — for  it  is  the  text  of  the  Constitu 
tion,  and  not  the  talk  of  the  Convention,  that  the  people 
adopted.  It  was  the  Constitution  itself,  and  not  any  of 
the  interpretations  of  it,  nor  any  of  the  talks  or  writings 
about  it,  that  the  people  adopted. 

Suppose,  that  the  bill,  now  under  discussion,  should, 
unhappily,  become  a  statute — would  it  be  necessary,  in 
order  to  understand  it,  to  know  what  the  honorable 
gentleman  of  Kentucky,  [Mr.  Preston,]  who  preceded 
me,  said  of  it,  or  what  I  am  saying  of  it  ?  Certainly 
not.  If  I  mean  what  I  say,  nevertheless,  my  words 
could  have  no  legitimate  bearing  on  the  interpretation 
of  the  statute.  But  my  speech  may  be  insincere.  I 
may,  as,  doubtless,  many  a  legislator  has  done,  be  prac 
ticing  on  Talleyrand's  definition:  u  Language  is  the  art 
of  concealing  the  thoughts :" — and  pray,  what  help,  in 
that  case,  to  the  just  interpretation  of  the  statute,  could 
my  speech  afford  ? 

I  said,  that  the  Constitution  is  what  its  adopters  un 
derstood  it  to  be — not  what  the  distinguished  few  among 
them — but  what  the  masses — understood  it  to  be  :  and 
what  that  was,  the  abolition  petition,  headed  with  the 
name  of  Benjamin  Franklin,  and  presented  to  the  first 
Congress  under  the  Constitution,  strikingly  indicated. 
That  it  was  not  successful  is  another  evidence,  that 
the  views  of  the  people  often  differ  from  the  views  of 
office-holders.  Or,  the  failure  was,  perhaps,  more  pro 
perly  to  be  regarded,  as  an  evidence  of  the  understand- 


142  THE  NEBKASKA  BILL. 

ing,  which,  doubtless,  did  exist  among,  at  least,  some  of 
the  statesmen  of  that  day,  that  slavery  was  not  to  be 
killed  by  the  immediate  application  of  the  powers  of 
the  Constitution,  but  was  to  be  allowed  to  linger  through 
that  age.  Whilst  I  deny,  that  there  is  a  word  in  the 
Constitution  to  authorize  the  continuance  of  slavery, 
I,  nevertheless,  admit  that  there  was,  outside  of  the 
Constitution,  the  understanding  to  which  I  have  refer 
red — an  understanding  confined,  however,  to  a  few,  and 
for  which  the  masses  were  not  responsible.  A  sad  mis 
take,  as  it  turns  out,  was  this  suffering  of  slavery  to 
drag  out  its  death-struck  and  feeble  existence  through 
that  generation,  in  which  the  Constitution  was  adopted ! 
• — for,  it  was  in  that  very  generation,  that,  in  consequence 
of  the  invention  already  spoken  of,  slavery  became 
strong,  and  began  to  demand  prolonged  life  and  vast 
powers  as  a  right — an  absolute  and  permanent  right. 
The  slut,  in  La  Fontaine's  fable,  on  the  eve  of  becoming 
a  mother,  implored  the  brief  loan  of  a  kennel.  But  hav 
ing  once  got  possession  of  it,  she  found  excuse  for  con 
tinuing  the  possession,  until  her  young  dogs  were  grown 
up.  With  this  reinforcement,  it  is  not  strange,  that 
she  should  be  inspired  by  the  maxim,  "  might  makes 
right,"  and  should  claim,  as  absolutely  her  own,  that 
which  had  only  been  lent  to  her — and  lent  to  her,  too, 
so  generously  and  confidingly.  This  fable  illustrates, 
but  too  well,  the  successive  feebleness,  and  growth,  and 
usurpation  of  slavery. 


THE  NEBRASKA  BILL.  143 

"We  begin  with  the  Preamble  of  the  Constitution. 
This,  at  least,  is  anti-slavery  :  and  this  tells  us,  that  the 
Constitution  is  anti-slavery — for  it  tells  us,  that  one  thing, 
for  which  the  Constitution  was  made,  was  "  to  secure 
the  blessings  of  liberty" — not  to  inflict,  or  sustain,  the 
curse  of  slavery — but  "to  secure  the  blessings  of  liber 
ty."  I  admit,  that  the  Preamble  is  not  the  Constitution. 

I  admit,  that  it  is  but  the  porch  of  the  temple.  Nev 
ertheless,  if,  instead  of  the  demon  of  Slavery  coiled  up 
in  that  porch,  we  see  the  Goddess  of  Liberty  standing 
proudly  there,  then  we  may  infer,  that  the  temple  itself, 
instead  of  being  polluted  with  Slavery,  is  consecrated 
to  Liberty.  And  we  are  not  mistaken  in  this  inference. 
As  we  walk  through  the  temple,  we  find,  that  it  corre 
sponds  with  the  entrance.  The  Constitution  is  in  har 
mony  with  the  Preamble. 

The  first  reference,  in  the  Constitution,  to  slavery,  is 
in  the  apportionment  clause.  There  is,  however,  no  re 
ference  to  it  here,  if  the  language  is  interpreted,  accord 
ing  to  its  legal  sense,  or  if  the  framers  of  the  Constitu 
tion  were  intelligent  and  honest.  It  must  be  remarked, 
that  it  was  from  this  clause,  that  they  struck  out  the 
word  "  servitude"  for  the  avowed  purpose  of  saving  it 
from  being  a  pro-slavery  clause.  But,  in  point  of  fact, 
if  this  clause  does  refer  to  slavery,  it  is  nevertheless,  a 
clause  not  to  encourage,  but  to  discourage,  slavery.  The 
clause  diminishes  the  power  of  a  State  in  the  national 
councils  in  proportion  to  the  extent  of  its  slavery.  This 


iM  THE  NEBRASKA  BILL. 

clause  is,  in  truth,  a  bounty  on  emancipation.  Had  it 
provided,  that  drunkards  should  each  count  but  three 
fifths  of  a  man,  it,  surely,  would  not  be  called  a  clause 
to  encourage  drunkenness.  Or,  had  it  provided,  that 
they,  who  can  neither  read  nor  write,  should  each  count 
but  three  fifths  of  a  man,  it,  surely,  would  not  be  called 
a  clause  to  encourage  illiterateness.  In  the  one  case,  it 
would  be  a  bounty  on  sobriety,  and,  in  the  other,  on 
education. 

The  next  clause  of  the  Constitution,  which  we  will 
examine,  is  that,  which,  confessedly,  empowers  Congress 
to  abolish  the  foreign  slave-trade.  I,  of  course,  mean 
the  clause,  which  empowers  Congress  to  regulate  com 
merce  with  foreign  nations.  Yes,  the  slave  States  con 
fessedly  conceded  to  Congress  the  power  to  abolish  that 
trade  ;  and  Congress  did  actually  abolish  it.  But,  it  is 
said,  that  the  provision,  respecting  "migration  or  im 
portation,"  suspended  the  exercise  of  this  power  for 
twenty  years.  Under  no  legal  and  proper  sense  of  it, 
however,  does  this  provision  refer  to  slaves.  But,  for 
the  sake  of  the  argument,  we  will  admit,  that  it  does, 
and  that  it  had  the  effect  to  suspend,  for  twenty  years, 
the  exercise  of  the  power  in  question.  What  then  ? 
The  suspension  could  not  destroy,  nor,  to  any  degree, 
impair,  the  essential  anti-slavery  character  of  the  clause 
under  consideration.  On  the  contrary,  the  suspension 
itself  shows,  that  the  clause  was  regarded,  by  the  makers 
of  the  Constitution,  as  potentially  anti-slavery — as  one, 


THE   NEBRASKA   BILL. 

that  was  capable  of  being  wielded,  and  that,  probably, 
would  be  wielded,  to  suppress  the  slave-trade.  I  would 
add,  that  this  brief  suspension  goes  to  justify  the  posi 
tion,  that  American  slavery  was  looked  upon,  in  that 
day,  as  a  rapidly  expiring  practice — as  a  vice,  that  would 
die  out,  in  a  few  years.  There  is  much  historical  evi 
dence,  that  the  abolition  of  the  slave-trade  was  looked 
to  by  many,  if  not,  indeed,  by  most,  at  that  time,  either 
as  equivalent  to,  or  as  sure  to  result  in,  the  abolition  of 
slavery.  The  power  given  to  Congress  to  abolish  the 
slave-trade,  Mr.  Dawes,  in  the  Massachusetts  Conven 
tion,  that  adopted  the  Constitution,  declared  to  be  "  the 
mortal  wound"  of  slavery. 

Manifestly,  the  clause  of  the  Constitution,  which  im 
parts  power  to  abolish  the  slave-trade,  and  not  that, 
which  briefly  suspends  the  exercise  of  this  power,  gives 
character  to  the  Constitution.  If  my  neighbor  deeds 
me  his  farm,  only  reserving  to  himself  the  possession 
of  it  for  a  month,  (and  a  week  in  the  life  of  an  individual 
is  longer  than  twenty  years  in  the  life  of  a  nation,)  it 
would,  certainly,  be  very  absurd  to  call  it  a  transaction 
for  continuing  him  in  the  ownership  and  possession  of 
the  farm.  Or,  if  the  bargain,  which  I  make  with  my 
neighbor,  is,  that,  after  a  week's  delay,  he  shall  come 
into  my  service  for  life,  it  is  certainly  not  this  little  de 
lay,  that  is  to  stamp  the  essential  and  important  charac 
ter  of  the  bargain. 

I  have  referred  to  only  a  part  of  the  clause,  which 


146  THE   NEBKASKA   BILL. 

gives  power  to  Congress  to  abolish  the  slave-trade  ;  to 
only  that  part,  which  respects  the  foreign  slave-trade. 
I,  now,  add,  that  this  clause  gives  equal  power  to  abolish 
the  inter-State  slave-trade.  And  if  it  does,  how  idle 
must  it  be  to  say,  that  a  Constitution,  which  empowers 
Congress  to  abolish,  not  only  the  foreign,  but  the  do 
mestic  slave-trade,  is  a  Constitution  for  slavery !  To 
abolish  the  domestic  slave-trade  is  to  cut  the  very  jugu 
lar  of  slavery. 

But  it  is  said,  that  the  power  "  to  regulate  commerce 
among  the  several  States"  is  not  a  power  to  abolish  the 
slave-trade  between  them.  But,  if  it  is  not,  then  the 
power  "to  regulate  commerce  with  foreign  nations"  is 
not  a  power  to  abolish  the  African  slave-trade.  Never 
theless,  Congress  held,  that  it  was;  and,  in  that  day, 
when  slavery  was  not  in  the  ascendant,  everybody 
agreed  with  Congress. 

It  is  further  said,  that  the  Constitution  knows  human 
beings  only  as  persons ;  and  that,  hence,  the  inter-State 
traffic  in  slaves,  being,  in  its  eye,  but  migration  or  travel, 
Congress  has  no  power  to  suppress  it.  Then,  what 
right  had  Congress  to  abolish  the  African  slave-trade  ? 
The  subjects  of  that  traffic,  no  less  than  the  subjects  of 
the  inter-State  traffic,  are  persons.  Another  reply, 
which  we  make  to  the  position,  that  all  human  beings 
are  persons  in  the  eye  of  the  Constitution,  is  that  it  can 
not  lie  in  the  mouth  of  those,  who  carry  on  the  traffic 
in  slaves,  to  ignore  the  true  character  of  that  traffic,  and 


THE   NEBKASKA  BILL.  147 

to  shelter  its  chattel-subjects  under  the  name  of  persons. 
And  another  reply,  which  we  make  to  this  position  is, 
that  it  is  true ;  and  that,  hence,  the  traffic  in  slaves, 
every  slave  being  a  person,  is  unconstitutional.  If  the 
Constitution  grants  power  to  Congress  over  commerce, 
it  necessarily  defines  the  subj  ects  of  the  commerce.  S  uch 
definition  is  involved  in  such  grant.  But  slaves  can  not 
come  within  such  definition-— »for  slaves  are  persons,  and 
persons  can  not  be  the  subjects  of  commerce.  And  still 
another  reply,  that  we  have  to  make  to  those,  who 
would  exempt  the  inter-State  traffic  in  human  beings 
from  the  control  of  Congress,  on  the  ground,  that  Con 
gress  can  know  no  human  being  as  a  chattel,  or  as  other 
than  a  person,  is  that  they  are  driven  by  logical  consist 
ency  and  logical  necessity  to  the  conclusion,  that  the 
Constitution  has  power  to  sweep  away  the  whole  of 
American  slavery.  The  Constitution  extends  its  shield 
over  every  person  in  the  United  States ;  and  every  per- 
son  in  the  United  States  has  rights  specified  in  the  Con 
stitution,  that  are  entirely  incompatible  with  his  subjec 
tion  to  slavery. 

Ere  leaving  this  topic,  I  notice  an  objection,  which 
is  frequently  heard  from  the  lips  of  earnest  anti-slavery 
men.  It  is,  that  the  Constitution  omits  to  command 
Congress  in  terms,  to  abolish  the  African  slave-trade, 
even  at  the  end  of  the  twenty  years.  But  why  do  they 
fail  to  see,  that  this  very  omission  marks  the  anti-slav 
ery  character  of  the  Constitution  and  of  the  day,  when  it 


148  THE  NEBRASKA  BILL. 

was  written  ?  Doomed  slavery  then  needed  an  express 
stipulation  for  its  respite.  But  to  enjoin  anti-slavery 
action  upon  those,  who  could  be  held  back  from  it  only 
by  such  express  stipulation,  was,  of  course,  deemed  su 
perfluous.  The  sentence  of  the  court  is,  that  the  mother 
shall  not  kiss  her  infant  for  twenty  days.  The  court 
need  not  enjoin,  that  she  shall  kiss  it  after  the  twenty 
days  are  expired.  Her  %  love  for  her  infant  makes 
such  injunction  quite  superfluous.  So  was  it  unneces 
sary  to  enjoin  upon  the  anti-slavery  zeal  of  our  fathers 
the  abolition  of  the  slave-trade,  at  the  expiration  of 
the  twenty  years.  Scarcely  had  the  twenty  years  expired 
before  that  zeal  forbade,  under  the  heaviest  penalties, 
the  continuance  of  that  accursed  trade.  An  ancient 
nation  regarded  parricide  as  too  unnatural  and  mon 
strous  a  crime  to  need,  the  interdiction  of  law.  And 
our  fathers  regarded  the  African  slave-trade  as  a  crime 
so  unnatural  and  monstrous,  as  to  make  their  injunc 
tions  on  Congress  to  abolish  it  altogether  superfluous. 
We  have,  now,  disposed  of  two  of  the  three  clauses 
of  the  Constitution,  which  are  assumed  to  be  pro-slavery, 
namely:  the  apportionment  clause,  and  the  migration  and 
importation  clause.  The  third  refers  to  fugitive  servants, 
but  certainly  not  to  fugitive  slaves.  Whether  we  look 
at  the  letter  or  history  of  this  clause,  it  can  have  no  re 
ference  to  slaves.  No  one  pretends  that  slaves  are  ex 
pressly  and  clearly  denned  in  it ;  and  hence,  according  to 
the  rule  of  the  Supreme  Court,  which  I  have  quoted,  slaves 
are  not  referred  to  in  it.  Again,  none  deny  that  the  terms 


THE   NEBRASKA   BILL.  149 

of  the  clause  make  it  applicable  to  apprentices,  minor 
children,  and  others.  All  admit,  that,  in  the  most  natural 
use  of  language,  it  is  capable  of  innocent  applications. 

The  clause,  under  consideration,  speaks  of  a  "person 
held  to  service  or  labor  in  one  State,  under  the  laws 
thereof.  "  JSTow,  unless  these  laws  are  for  slavery,  the 
service  or  labor  cannot  be  slavery ; — and  if  they  are  for 
slavery,  then  they  cannot  hold  any  person  to  slavery, 
unless  they  are  valid  laws.  But  they  are  not  valid  laws 
unless  they  are  in  harmony  with  the  Constitution.  If 
the  Constitution  is  against  slavery,  then  pro-slavery 
laws  are  but  nominal  laws.  It  will  be  more  timely,  at 
the  close  of  my  argument  than  now,  to  say,  whether  the 
Constitution  is  against,  or  for  slavery.  In  the  next  place, 
the  clause  speaks  of  a  person.  But  as  we  shall  more 
fully  see,  there  are  rights  claimed  for  persons  by  the 
Constitution  itself,  which  must  all  be  trodden  under 
foot,  before  persons  can  be  reduced  to  slavery.  Another 
reason,  why  the  fugitives  referred  to  in  this  clause  are 
not  slaves,  is,  that  "service  or  labor,"  is  "due,"  to  their 
employer  from  these  fugitives.  But  slaves,  by  every 
American  definition  of  slaves,  are  as  incapable  of  owing 
as  are  horses  or  even  horse-blocks.  So  too,  by  every 
English  definition  of  slaves.  Says  Justice  Best,  in  case 
of  Forbes  vs.  Oochran :  "  A  slave  is  incapable  of  compact." 
And  another  reason,  why  this  claiise  cannot  refer  to 
slaves,  is,  that  the  fugitives  in  it  are  held  by  the  laws 
to  labor.  But  slaves,  no  more  than  oxen,  are  held  by 
the  laws  to  labor.  The  laws  no  more  interpose  to  com- 


150  THE   NEBRASKA   BILL. 

pel  labor  in  tlie  one  case  than  in  the  other.  And  still 
another  reason,  why  this  clause  is  not  to  be  taken  as  re 
ferring  to  slaves,  is  the  absurdity  of  supposing,  that  our 
fathers  consented  to  treat  as  slaves  whatever  persons, 
white  or  black,  high  or  low,  virtuous  or  vicious,  any 
future  laws  of  any  State  might  declare  to  be  slaves. 
Shall  we  of  the  North  be  bound  to  acquiesce  in  the 
slavery  of  our  children,  who  may  emigrate  to  the  South, 
provided  the  laws  of  the  South  shall  declare  Northern 
emigrants  to  be  slaves  ?  Nay,  more,  shall  we  be  bound 
to  replunge  those  children  into  slavery, 'if  they  escape 
from  it  ?  But  all  this  we  shall  be  bound  to  do,  if  the 
pro-slavery  interpretation  of  the  clause  in  question  is  the 
true  interpretation.  Ay,  and  in  that  case,  we  shall  be 
bound  to  justify  even  our  own  slavery,  should  we  be 
caught  at  the  South  and  legislated  into  slavery.  This 
intimation,  that  slavery  may  yet  take  a  much  wider 
range  in  supplying  itself  with  victims,  is  by  no  means 
extravagant  and  unauthorized.  The  Supreme  Court 
of  the  United  States  opened  a  wide  door  to  this  end, 
in  the  case  of  Strader  and  others  vs.  Gorliam,  some 
three  years  ago.  In  that  case,  the  Court  claimed  that 
a  State  "has  an  undoubted  right  to  determine  the 
status,  or  domestic  and  social  condition,  of  the  persons 
domiciled  within  its  territory."  By  the  way,  this  doc 
trine  of  the  Supreme  Court,  that  there  are  no  natural 
rights ;  and  that  all  rights  stand  but  in  the  concessions 
and  uncertainties  of  human  legislation,  is  a  legitimate 
outgrowth  of  slavery.  For  slavery  is  a  war  upon  nature, 


THE   NEBRASKA   BILL.  151 

and  is  the  devourer  of  the  rights  of  nature ;  and  claims 
that  all  rights  and  all  interests,  natural  and  conven 
tional,  shall  accommodate  themselves  to  its  demands. 

We  need  §pend  no  more  time  on  the  letter  of  this 
clause.  We  will,  now,  look  at  its  history.  It  is  a  well- 
nigh  universal  impression,  that  this  clause  is  one  of  the 
compromises  of  the  Constitution.  But  there  is  not  the 
slightest  foundation  in  truth  for  this  impression.  In 
none  of  the  numerous  plans  of  a  Constitution,  submit 
ted  to  its  framers,  was  the  subject-matter  of  this  clause 
mentioned.  Indeed  it  was  not  mentioned  at  all,  until 
twenty  days  before  the  close  of  the  Convention.  This 
clause,  when  its  insertion  was  first  moved,  contained 
the  word  "  slave."  But,  with  that  word  in  it,  it  met 
with  such  strenuous  opposition,  as  to  compel  the  imme 
diate  withdrawal  of  the  motion.  The  next  day,  how 
ever,  it  was  offered  again,  but  with  the  word  "  slave" 
struck  out.  In  this  amended  and  harmless  form,  it  was 
adopted  immediately,  without  debate,  and  unanimously. 
I  add,  by  the  way,  that  no  one  believes,  that  a  clause 
providing  in  express  terms,  for  the  surrender  of  the 
whole  American  soil  to  the  chasing  down  and  enslaving 
of  men,  women  and  children,  could  ever  have  gained 
the  vote  of  the  Convention ;  or  that,  if  it  had,  the  Con 
stitution,  with  such  a  disgusting  blot  upon  it,  could 
ever  have  been  adopted. 

Another  reason  for  not  claiming  this  clause  to  be  pro- 
slavery  is,  that  the  American  people  did,  in  all  proba- 


152  THE   NEBRASKA    BILL. 

bility,  regard  the  word  "service"  as  expressing  the  con 
dition  of  freemen.  So,  as  we  have  seen,  the  members 
of  the  Constitutional  convention,  regarded  it ;  and,  in 
asmuch  as  they  came  together  from  all  parts  of  the 
country,  and  represented  all  classes  and  sections  of  the 
American  people,  is  it  not  a  fair  inference,  that  they 
used  language  in  the  sense  approved  by  the  American 
people  ? 

We  have,  now,  examined  those  parts  of  the  Consti 
tution,  which  are  relied  on  to  give  it  a  pro-slavery  cha* 
racter ;  and  we  find,  that  they  are  not  entitled  to  give  it 
this  character.  We  proceed  to  glance  at  some,  and  at 
only  some,  of  those  parts  of  the  Constitution,  which 
clearly  prove  its  anti-slavery  character ;  which  are  ut 
terly  incompatible  with  slavery ;  and  which,  therefore, 
demand  its  abolition. 

1.  "  Congress  has  power  to  provide  for  the  common  de 
fence  and  general  tvelfare  of  the  United  States" 

But  Congress  has  not  this  power,  if  the  obstacles  of 
slavery  may  be  put  in  the  way  of  its  exercise.  A  man 
cannot  be.  said  to  have  law  for  driving  his  carriage 
through  the  streets,  if  another  man  has  law  for  blocking 
its  wheels.  If  the  States  may  establish  the  most  atro 
cious  wrongs  within  their  borders,  and  thus  create  an 
atmosphere  in  which  the  Federal  Government  cannot 
"live  and  move  and  have  its  being ;"  then  within  those 
borders,  the  Federal  Government  may  be  reduced  to 
a  nullity.  The  power  referred  to  in  this  clause  Con- 


THE  NEBRASKA   BILL.  153 

gress  will  never  have  faithfully  exercised,  so  long  as  it 
leaves  millions  of  foes  in  the  bosom  of  our  country.  By 
enrolling  the  slaves  in  the  militia,  and  yielding  to  their 
Constitutional  right  "to  keep  and  bear  arms"— which 
is,  in  effect,  to  abolish  slavery— Congress  would  convert 
those  foes  into  friends.  The  power  in  question,  Patrick 
Henry,  who  was  then  the  orator  of  America,  held  to  be 
sufficient  for  abolishing  slavery.  In  the  Virginia  Con 
vention,  which  passed  upon  the  Federal  Constitution,  Mr. 
Henry  said  :  "  May  Congress  not  say,  that  every  black 
man  must  fight  ?  Did  we  not  see  a  little  of  this,  the 
last  war  ?  "We  were  not  so  hard  pushed  as  to  make 
emancipation  general.  But  acts  of  Assembly  passed, 
that  every  slave,  who  would  go  to  the  army  should  be 
free.  Another  thing  will  contribute  to  bring  this  event 
about.  Slavery  is  detested.  "We  feel  its  fatal  effects. 
We  deplore  it  with  all  the  pity  of  humanity.  Let  all 
these  considerations,  at  some  future  period,  press  with 
full  force  upon  the  minds  of  Congress.  They  will  read 
that  paper,  (the  Constitution,)  and  see  if  they  have  power 
of  manumission.  And  have  they  not,  sir  ?  Have  they 
not  power  to  provide  for  the  general  defence  and  wel 
fare  ?  May  they  not  think,  that  they  call  for  the  abo 
lition  of  slavery?  May  they  not  pronounce  all  slaves 
free?— and  will  they  not  be  warranted  by  that  power? 
There  is  no  ambiguous  implication  or  illogical  deduc 
tion.  The  paper  speaks  to  the  point.  They  have  the  power 
in  clear  and  unequivocal  terms:  and  will  clearly  and 
certainly  exercise  it" 


154  THE  NEBRASKA   BILL. 

2.  "  Congress  has  power  to  impose  a  capitation  tax.'1'1 
Manifestly,  Congress  can  pay  no  respect  in  this  case 

to  the  distinction  of  bond  and  free.  It  can  look  for  the 
payment  of  the  tax  to  none  other  than  the  subjects  of 
the  tax.  But  if  any  of  them  do  not  own  themselves, 
they  cannot  owe  the  tax.  This  clause  implies,  therefore, 
the  self-ownership  of  men,  and  not  their  ownership  by 
others. 

3.  "  Congress  shall  have  power  to  establish  a  uniform 
rule  of  naturalization" 

But  this  power,  if  faithfully  exercised,  is  fatal  to  slav 
ery.  For  if  our  three  millions  and  a  half  of  slaves 
are  not  already  citizens,  Congress  can  under  this  power 
make  them  such,  at  any  time.  It  can  confer  on  them, 
as  easily  as  on  foreigners,  the  rights  of  citizenship.  I 
add,  that,  had  the  slaveholders  wished  (as  however  they 
did  not)  to  perpetuate  slavery,  they  would  if  they  could 
have  qualified  this  absolute  and  unlimited  power  of 
naturalization,  which  the  Constitution  confers  on  Con 
gress. 

4.  "  The  Congress  shall  have  power  to  promote  the  pro 
gress  of  science  and  useful  arts  by  securing  for  limited  times 
to  authors  and  inventors  the  exclusive  right  to  their  respect 
ive  writings  and  discoveries" 

This  clause  clearly  authorizes  Congress  to  encourage 
and  reward  the  genius,  as  well  of  him  who  is  called  a 
slave,  as  of  any  other  person.  One  person  as  much 
as  another,  is  entitled  to  a  copyright  of  his  book  and 


THE   NEBRASKA   BILL.  155 

to  a  patent  for  his  meritorious  invention.  Not  so,  how 
ever,  if  there  may  be  slavery.  For  the  victim  of  slavery 
has  no  rights ;  and  the  productions  of  his  mind,  no  less 
than  the  productions  of  his  hands,  belong  to  his  master. 

5.  "  Congress  shall  have  power  to  declare  war,  grant 
letters  of  marque  and  reprisal — to  raise  and  support  armies 
— to  provide  and  maintain  a  navy" 

It  necessarily  follows,  from  the  unconditional  power 
of  Congress  to  carry  on  war,  that  it  can  contract  with 
whom  it  pleases — white  or  black,  employer  or  employed 
—to  fight  its  battles  ;  and  can  secure  to  each  his  wages, 
pension,  or  prize  money.  But  utterly  inconsistent  with 
this  absolute  power  of  Congress  is  the  claim  of  the  slave 
holder  to  the  time,  the  earnings,  the  will,  the  all,  of  the 
sailor,  or  soldier,  whom  he  calls  his  slave. 

6.  "  The  United  States  shall  guaranty  to  every  State  in 
this  Union  a  republican  form  of  government" 

It  is  a  common  opinion,  that  the  General  Government 
should  not  concern  itself  with  the  internal  policy  and 
arrangements  of  a  State.  But  this  opinion  is  not  justi 
fied  by  the  Constitution.  The  case  may  occur,  where 
the  neglect  thus  to  concern  itself  would  involve  its  own 
ruin,  as  well  as  the  greatest  wrong  and  distress  to  the 
people  of  a  State.  How  could  the  General  Government 
be  maintained,  if  in  one  State  suffrage  were  universal, 
and  in  another  conditioned  on  the  possession  of  land, 
and  in  another  on  the  possession  of  money,  and  in  an* 
other  on  the  possession  of  slaves,  and  in  another  on  the 
possession  of  literary  or  scientific  attainments,  and  in 


156  THE   NEBRASKA   BILL. 

another  on  the  possession  of  a  prescribed  religious  creed, 
and  if  in  others  it  were  conditioned  on  still  other  pos 
sessions  and  attainments?  How  little  resemblance  and 
sympathy  there  would  be,  in  that  case,  between  the 
Congressional  representatives  of  the  different  States! 
How  great  would  be  the  discord  in  our  National  Coun 
cils!  How  speedy  the  ruin  to  our  national  and  subor 
dinate  interests!  In  such  circumstances,  the  General 
Government  would  be  clearly  bound  to  insist  on  an 
essential  uniformity  in  the  State  Governments.  But 
what  would  be  due  from  the  General  Government  then, 
is  emphatically  due  from  it  now.  Our  nation  is  already 
brought  into  great  peril  by  the  slavocratic  element  in 
its  councils;  and  in  not  a  few  of  the  States,  the  white, 
as  well  as  the  black,  masses  are  crushed  by  that  political 
element.  Surely  the  nation  is  entitled  to  liberation  from 
this  peril;  and,  surely,  these  masses  have  a  perfectly 
constitutional,  as  well  as  most  urgent,  claim  on  the 
nation  for  deliverance  from  the  worst  of  despotisms, 
and  for  the  enjoyment  of  a  "republican  form  of  Gov 
ernment." 

7.  "No  State  shall  pass  any  Ull  of  attainder  " 

But  what  is  so  emphatic,  and  causeless,  and  merciless 
a  bill  of  attainder,  as  that,  which  attaints  a  woman  with 
all  her  posterity  for  no  other  reason  than  that  there 
is  African  blood  in  her  veins  ? 

8.  "The  privilege  of  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus  shall  not 
be  suspended,  unless  when,  in  cases  of  rebellion  or  invasion, 
the  public  safety  may  require  it" 


THE   NEBRASKA  BILL.  157 

Blackstone  pronounces  this  writ  "the  most  celebrated 
writ  of  England  and  the  chief  bulwark  of  the  Constitu 
tion."  One  of  his  editors,  Mr.  Christian,  says,  that  "it  is 
this  writ,  which  makes  slavery  impossible  in  England." 
Equally  impossible,  in  theory,  does  it  make  slavery 
in  America,.  And  in  both  countries  the  impossibility 
springs  from  the  fact,  that  the  writ  is  entirely  incompa 
tible  with  the  claim  of  property  in  man.  In  the  pre 
sence  of  such  a  claim,  if  valid,  this  writ  is  impotent,  for 
if  property  can  be  plead  in  the  prisoner,  (and  possession 
is  proof  of  ownership,)  the  writ  is  defeated. 

Slavery  cannot  be  legalized  short  of  suspending  the 
writ  of  habeas  corpus,  in  the  case  of  the  slaves.  But, 
inasmuch  as  the  Constitution  provides  for  no  such  sus 
pension,  there  is  no  legal  slavery  in  the  nation. 

I  add,  that  the  Federal  Government  should  see  to  it, 
that,  in  every  part  of  the  nation,  where  there  are  slaves, 
if  need  be,  in  every  county,  or  even  town,  there  are 
Judges  who  will  faithfully  use  this  writ  for  their  deliver 
ance. 

9.  "No  person  shall  be  deprived  of  life,  liberty,  or  pro 
perty,  without  due  process  of  lo,w? 

Let  this  provision  have  free  course,  and  it  puts  an 
end  to  American  slavery.  It  is  claimed,  however,  that, 
inasmuch  as  the  slave  is  held  by  law,  (which,  in  point  of 
fact,  he  is  not,)  and,  therefore,  "by  due  process  of  law," 
nothing  can  be  gained  for  him  from  this  provision. 
But,  inasmuch,  as  this  provision  is  an  organic  and  fund 
amental  law,  it  is  not  subject  to  any  other  law,  but  is 


158  THE  NEBRASKA  BILL. 

paramount  to  every  other  law.  Moreover,  it  is  a  great 
mistake  to  confound  the  laws,  so  called,  by  which,  per 
sons  are  held  in  slavery,  with  "due  process  of  law." 

Justice  Bronson  says  [Hill's  Eeports,  IV.  146]  of  this 
part  of  the  Constitution : 

"The  meaning  of  the  section  then  seems  to  be,  that  no 
member  of  the  State  shall  be  disfranchised,  or  deprived  of  any 
of  his  rights  or  privileges,  unless  the  matter  shall  be  adjudged 
against  him,  upon  trial  had,  according  to  the  course  of  the 
common  law." 

He  adds: 

"The  words  'due  process  of  law,'  in  this  place  can 
not  mean  less  than  a  prosecution  or  suit,  instituted  and 
conducted,  according  to  the  prescribed  forms  and  solem 
nities  for  ascertaining  guilt,  or  determining  the  title 
to  property." 

Lord  Coke  explains  "due  process  of  law"  to  be,  uby 
indictment  or  presentment  of  good  and  lawful  men, 
where  such  deeds  be  done  in  due  manner,  or  by  suit 
original  of  the  common  law." 

The  defenders  of  the  constitutionality  of  State  slavery 
are  driven  to  the  position,  that  such  specific  denials 
of  the  definition  and  violation  of  rights,  as  I  have  just 
quoted  from  one  of  the  amendments  of  the  Constitution, 
are  limitations  upon  the  power  of  the  Federal  Govern 
ment  only.  They  say,  that  it  is  to  be  inferred,  that  the 
limitations  are  on  Federal  power,  when  the  Constitution 
does  not  point  out  whether  they  are  on  Federal  or 


THE   NEBRASKA  BILL.  159 

State  power.  Whence,  however,  is  this  inference  justi 
fied?  From  the  fact,  it  is.  answered,  that  the  Federal 
power  is  the  subject-matter  of  the  Constitution — is  that, 
of  which  it  treats — is  that,  which  it  constitutes.  But 
the  Constitution  is  a  paper,  not  merely  for  establishing 
the  Federal  Grovernment,  and  prescribing  its  character 
and  limits.  It  is,  also,  a  paper  for  determining  the 
boundaries  of  State  authority.  And  the  latter  purpose 
is  no  less  important,  or  necessary,  than  the  former. 
Happily,  however,  the  original  Constitution  left  nothing 
to  inference  in  this  matter.  It  does  not  need  a  more 
frequent  recurrence  of  the  word  "Congress"  in  them,  to 
make  it  entirely  plain,  that  the  eighth  and  ninth  sections 
of  the  first  article  of  the  Constitution  are  devoted  to  an 
enumeration  of  the  powers  and  disabilities  of  Congress. 
Nor  is  it  less  plain,  that  the  tenth  section  of  this  article 
is  taken  up  with  the  enumeration  of  the  disabilities 
of  the  States.  I  have  seen  an  old  copy  of  the  Constitu 
tion,  printed  in  Virginia,  in  which  "Powers  of  Congress" 
is  at  the  head  of  the  eighth  section,  and  "Eestrictions 
upon  Congress"  is  at  the  head  of  the  ninth  section,  and 
"Kestrictions  upon  respective  States"  is  at  the  head  of 
the  tenth  section.  The  repetition  of  the  word  "State," 
in  the  tenth  section,  would  have  been  as  unnecessary  as 
the  repetition  of  the  word  "Congress"  in  the  ninth  sec 
tion,  had  the  denial  of  State  powers  been  preceded  by 
the  enumeration  of  State  powers,  as  is  the  denial  of 
Federal  powers  by  the  enumeration  of  Federal  powers. 


160  THE  NEBRASKA   BILL. 

So  far,  then,  as  these  sections  are  concerned,  it  is  not 
left  to  the  looseness  of  inference  to  determine  whether 
the  Constitution  is  applicable  to  a  State,  or  to  the  Nation. 
One  of  the  sections  contains  limitations  on  the  Federal 
Government.  The  next  contains  limitations  on  another 
Government — another  Grovernment,  since  the  latter  lim 
itations  are,  to  some  extent,  identical  with  the  former, 
and  would,  of  course,  not  be  repeated,  were  but  one 
Government  in  view.  What,  however,  but  a  State 
Grovernment,  could  this  other  Government  be  ?  And 
yet,  to  avoid  all  necessity  of  inference,  the  word  "State" 
is  repeated  several  times  in  connection  with  these  latter 
limitations.  And,  now,  we  ask  where  in  the  original 
Constitution,  either  before  or  after  the  three  sections, 
which  we  have  referred  to,  is  it  left  to  be  inferred, 
whether  the  powers  granted  are  National  or  State 
powers?  Nowhere  is  there  such  uncertainty. 

We  will  now  take  up  the  amendments  of  the  Consti 
tution.  It  is  in  them,  that  we  find  those  specific  denials 
of  the  deprivation  and  violation  of  rights,  which  forbid 
slavery — such  denials,  for  instance,  as  that  "No  person 
shall  be  deprived  of  life,  or  liberty,  or  property,  without 
due  process  of  law." 

Twelve  articles  of  amendment  were  proposed  by  the 
first  Congress.  The  first  three  and  the  last  two  do, 
in  terms,  apply  to  the  Federal  Government,  and  to  that 
only.  In  the  case  of  most  of  the  remaining  seven,  their 
application  is  a  matter  of  inference.  Whilst,  however, 


THE   NEBRASKA   BILL.  161 

it  would  "be  a  gross  violation  of  the  laws  of  inference  to 
say,  that  they  apply  to  the  Federal  Government  only,  it 
would  be  in  perfect  accordance  with  these  laws  to  say, 
that,  inasmuch  as  a  part  of  the  amendments  refer  ex 
pressly  to  that  Government  only,  the  remainder  refer  to 
both  the  Federal  and  State  Governments,  or  to  State 
Governments  only. 

Because  the  first  one  of  the  adopted  amendments 
refers  expressly  to  the  Federal  Government,  and  to  that 
only,  there  are,  probably,  many  persons,  who  take  it  for 
granted,  that  the  other  amendments  follow  this  lead  of 
the  first,  and  have  the  same  reference  as  the  first.  They 
would  not  take  this  for  granted,  however,  did  they  know, 
that  this  first  of  the  adopted  amendments  was  the  third 
of  the  proposed  amendments;  and  that  it  came  to  be 
numbered  the  first,  only  because  the  preceding  two 
were  rejected.  It  is  entitled,  therefore,  to  give  no  lead 
and  no  complexion  to  the  amendments,  which  follow  it. 
And  this  conclusion  is  not  weakened,  but  strengthened, 
by  the  fact,  that  these  two  amendments  both  expressly 
referred  to  the  Federal  Government.  I  would  here  add, 
what  may  not  be  known  to  all,  that  the  eleventh  and 
twelfth  of  the  adopted  amendments  were  proposed  by 
Congress  after  the  other  ten  were  adopted. 

In  addition  to  the  reason  we  have  given,  why  a  part 
of  the  amendments  of  the  Constitution  refer  either 
to  the  State  Governments  exclusively,  or  to  both  the 
Federal  and  State  Governments,  is  that,  which  arises 


162  THE  NEBBASKA  BILL. 

from  the  fact,  that  they  are,  in  their  nature  and  meaning, 
as  applicable  to  a  State  Government,  as  to  the  Federal 
Government.  To  say,  that  such  amendments,  as  the 
second,  third,  and  fourth,  were  not  intended  to  apply  to 
the  whole  nation,  and  were  intended  to  apply  only  to 
the  little  handful  of  persons  under  the  exclusive  jurisdic 
tion  of  the  Federal  Government,  is  to  say  what  cannot 
be  defended.  Again,  if  there  be  only  a  reasonable 
doubt,  that  the  fifth  amendment  refers  exclusively  to 
the  Federal  Government,  it  should  be  construed,  as 
referring  to  State  Government  also  ;  for  human  liberty 
is  entitled  to  the  benefit  of  every  reasonable  doubt ;  and 
this  is  a  case  in  which  human  liberty  is  most  emphatic 
ally  concerned. 

We  have  no  right  to  go  out  of  the  Constitution  for 
the  purpose  of  learning  whether  the  amendments  in 
question  are,  or  are  not,  limitations  on  State  Govern 
ments.  It  is  enough,  that  they  are  in  their  terms, 
nature,  and  meaning,  as  suitably,  limitations  on  the 
Government  of  a  State,  as  on  the  National  Government. 
Being  such  limitations,  we  are  bound  to  believe,  that  the 
people,  when  adopting  these  amendments  by  their  Leg 
islatures,  interpreted  them,  as  having  the  two-fold  appli 
cation,  which  we  claim  for  them.  Being  such  limita 
tions,  we  must  insist,  whether  our  fathers  did,  or  did 
not,  on  this  two-fold  application.  Being  prohibitions 
on  the  Government  of  a  State,  as  well  as  on  the  Nation 
al  Government,  we  must,  in  the  name  of  religion  and 
reason,  of  God  and  man,  protest  against  limiting  the 


THE   NEBRASKA   BILL.  163 

prohibition  to  the  National  Government  for  the  exceed 
ingly  wicked  purpose  of  continuing  the  bondage  of 
millions  of  our  fellow-men. 

Had  we  the  right,  by  reason  of  any  obscurity  in  the 
teachings  of  the  Constitution  on  the  point  under  con 
sideration,  or  from  any  other  cause,  to  go  into  collateral 
evidences  of  the  character  of  these  teachings,  we  should 
find  our  interpretation  not  weakened,  but  confirmed. 

Nearly  all  the  amendments  of  the  Constitution,  and, 
indeed,  all  of  them,  which  concern  our  present  argu 
ment,  were  taken  from  the  Bill  of  Eights,  which  the 
Virginia  Convention  proposed  to  have  incorporated 
with  the  Federal  Constitution.  But,  inasmuch  as  this 
Bill  of  Eights  speaks  neither  of  Congress,  nor  the  Fed 
eral  Government,  its  language  is  to  be  construed  as  no 
less  applicable  to  a  State  than  to  the  Nation,  as  provid 
ing  security  no  less  against  the  abuse  of  the  State 
power  than  Federal  power. 

Again :  in  the  Congress,  which  submitted  the  amend 
ments,  Mr.  Madison  was  the  first  person  to  move  in 
the  matter.  He  proposed  two  series  of  amendments, 
one  of  them  affecting  Federal,  and  the  other  State 
powers.  His  proposition  provided  to  have  them  inter 
woven  in  the  original  Constitution.  For  instance,  the 
negations  of  Federal  Power  were  to  be  included  in  the 
ninth  section  of  the  first  article  ;  and  the  negations  of 
State  power  in  the  tenth  section  of  that  article.  And, 
what  is  more,  several  of  the  amendments,  which  he 
proposed  to  include  in  this  tenth  section,  are,  not  only 


164  THE  NEBRASKA  BILL. 

in  substance,  but  almost  precisely  in  letter,  identical 
with  amendments  which  became  a  part  of  the  Consti 
tution.  It  was  in  the  following  words,  that  Mr.  Madi 
son  justified  his  proposition  to  restrain  the  States:  "I 
think  there  is  more  danger  of  these  powers  being 
abused  by  the  State  Governments  than  by  the  Govern 
ment  of  the  United  States."  "  It  must  be  admitted  on 
all  hands,  that  the  State  Governments  are  as  liable  to 
attack  these  invaluable  privileges,  as  the  General  Gov 
ernment  is,  and  therefore  ought  to  be  as  cautiously 
guarded  against."  "I  should,  therefore,  wish  to  ex 
tend  this  interdiction,  and  add,  that  no  State  shall 
violate,"  etc.  If  there  was  any  reason  to  restrain  the 
Government  of  the  United  States  from  infringing  upon 
these  essential  rights,  it  was  equally  necessary  that 
they  should  be  secured  against  the  State  Governments. 
He  thought,  that  if  they  provided  against  the  one,  it 
was  as  necessary  to  provide  against  the  other,  and  was 
satisfied,  that  it  would  be  equally  grateful  to  the 
people. 

The  House  of  Eepresentatives  did  not  adopt  Mr. 
Madison's  plan  of  'distributing  the  amendments  through 
the  original  Constitution,  and  thus  expressly  applying 
one  to  the  Federal  and  another  to  a  State  Government. 
On  the  contrary,  it  made  them  a  supplement  to  the 
original  Constitution,  and  left  a  part  of  them  couched 
in  terms,  that  render  them  equally  applicable  either  to 
one  Government  or  the  other.  It  must  not  be  forgot 
ten,  that  Mr,  Madison's  plan  was  embodied  in  the 


THE  NEBKASKA  BILL.  165 

report  of  a  committee,  and  was  kept  before  the  House, 
for  a  long  time.  Nor  must  it  he  forgotten,  that  what 
ever  may  have  been  said  by  this  or  that  speaker,  in 
respect  to  the  application  of  this  or  that  amendment, 
no  vote  was  taken  declaring,  that  all,  or,  indeed,  any 
of  the  amendments  apply  to  the  General  Government, 
What,  however,  is  still  more  memorable  is,  that  there 
was  a  vote  taken,  which  shows,  that  the  House  did  not 
mean  to  have  all  the  amendments  apply  to  the  General 
Government  only.  The  vote  was  on  the  following 
proposed  amendment:  "  No  person  shall  be  subject,  in 
case  of  impeachment,  to  more  than  one  trial,  or  one 
punishment  for  the  same  offence,  nor  shall  be  compelled 
to  be  a  witness  against  himself,  nor  be  deprived  of  life, 
liberty,  or  property,  without  due  process  of  law,"  etc. 
Mr.  Partridge,  of  Massachusetts,  moved  to  insert  after 
"same  offence"  the  words  :  "by  any  law  of  the  United 
States."  His  motion  failed:  and  its  failure  proved, 
that  the  House  would  restrain  a  State,  as  well  as  the 
Nation,  from  such  oppression. 

As  the  Senate  sat  with  closed  doors,  we  know 
nothing  of  its  proceedings  in  respect  to  the  amend 
ments,  except  that  it  concurred  with  the  House  in 
rcommending  them. 

I  will  say  no  more  in  regard  to  the  meaning  of  the 
amendments.  Is  it  claimed,  that  if  the  original  Con 
stitution  is  pro-slavery,  and  the  amendments  anti-slav 
ery,  the  original  Constitution  shall  prevail  against  the 
amendments  ?  As  well  might  it  be  claimed  to  reverse 


166  THE  NEBRASKA  BILL. 

the  rule  in  the  case  of  a  will  and  to  have  its  repugnant 
language  prevail  against  the  codicil.  The  amendments 
of  the  Constitution,  are  the  codicils  of  the  Constitution ; 
and  if  anywhere  they  conflict  with  it,  the  Constitution 
must  yield. 

I  have,  now,  done,  not  only  with  the  amendments, 
but  with  the  entire  Constitution.  Within  the  compass 
of  a  single  speech,  I  could,  of  course,  comprise  but  an 
outline  of  my  argument.  I  commend  to  my  hearers 
the  arguments  of  William  Goodell  and  Lysander 
Spooner  on  this  subject.  It  must  be  very  difficult  for 
an  intelligent  person  to  rise  from  the  candid  reading  of 
Mr.  Spooner's  book,  entitled  "  The  Unconstitutionality 
of  Slavery,"  without  being  convinced,  by  its  unsur 
passed  logic,  that  American  slavery  finds  no  protection 
in  the  Constitution. 

I  said,  that  I  have,  now,  done  with  the  Constitution. 
I  believe,  I  am  warranted  in  adding,  that  I  have 
reached  the  conclusion,  that  there  is  power  in  the  Con 
stitution  to  abolish  every  part  of  American  slavery.  Is 
it  said,  that  this  conclusion,  notwithstanding  the  mani 
fest  logical  necessity  for  arriving  at  it,  is,  nevertheless, 
not  sound  ?  One  of  the  objections  to  its  soundness — 
namely :  that  the  slaveholders  could  never  have  consent 
ed  to  adopt  a  Constitution  of  such  anti-slavery  powers— 
I  have  already  replied  to,  by  saying,  that  the  slavehold 
ers  of  that  day,  being  against  the  continuance  of  slavery, 
and  the  slaveholders  of  this  day  for  it,  the  former  can- 


THE   NEBRASKA  BILL.  167 

not  be  judged  of  in  the  light  of  the  character  of  the 
latter.  To  this  I  add,  that  whatever  were  the  slave 
holders  of  that  day,  and  whatever  were  their  motives 
in  adopting  an  anti-slavery  Constitution,  they,  never 
theless,  did  adopt  it,  just  as  it  is — anti-slavery  as  it  is. 
The  other  principal  objection  to  the  soundness  of  my 
conclusion  is,  that  neither  slaveholders  nor  non-slave 
holders  would  have  consented  to  adopt  a  Constitution, 
which  annihilates  State  sovereignty.  My  answer  to 
the  latter  objection  is,  that  the  States  are  not  sovereign, 
and  were  not  intended  by  the  Constitution  to  be  sove 
reign.  The  simple  truth  is,  that  our  fathers  refused  to 
repeat  the  experiment  of  a  Confederacy  of  States  ;  and 
that,  instead  of  it,  they  devised  for  themselves  and  their 
posterity  a  Government,  which  is,  altogether,  too  broad 
and  binding  to  consist  with  State  sovereignty.  The 
Constitution  prescribes  limits  to  the  State  quite  too 
narrow  for  the  play  of  sovereignty.  It  denies  the 
State  many  specific  powers,  each  of  which  is  vital  to 
sovereignty.  For  instance,  it  restrains  it  from  entering 
into  a  treaty ;  and  from  coining  money ;  and,  if  the 
power  to  deprive  "of  life,  liberty,  or  property,"  is  vital 
to  sovereignty,  then,  as  we  have  seen,  the  State  is  not 
sovereign,  because  it  has  not  this  power.  Our  fathers 
would  not  consent,  that  any  section  of  their  fellow-men, 
with  whom  they  had  come  under  a  common  Govern 
ment,  should  outrage  essential  human  rights.  Our 
fathers  would  not  fraternize  with  the  people  of  Massa- 


168  THE  JSEBKASKA  BILL, 

chusetts,  and  yet  allow  them  to  plunder  each  other  of 
property.  They  would  not  consent  to  be  one  people 
with  murderers,  and,  therefore,  they  would  not  allow 
room  for  the  Pennsylvanians  to  turn  Thugs.  And 
slavery,  being  worse  than  murder,  (for  what  intelligent 
parent  would  not  rather  have  his  children  dispatched 
by  the  murderer,  than  chained  by  the  slaveholder  ?) — 
slavery  being,  indeed,  the  greatest  wrong  to  man,  of 
which  we  can  conceive — our  fathers  would  not  come 
under  the  same  Grovernment  with  Virginians,  if  Vir 
ginians  were  to  be  allowed  to  enslave  and  buy  and  sell 
men.  Does  the  Constitution  require  us  to  remain 
bound  up  with  Pennsylvania,  even  though  her  policy 
is  to  shoot  all  her  adult  subjects,  whose  stature  falls 
below  five  feet  ?  Does  it  require  us  to  continue  in  the 
same  political  brotherhood  with  Virginia,  even  though 
she  shall  enslave  all  her  light-haired  subjects,  (or,  what 
is  the  same  in  principle,)  all  her  dark-skinned  subjects  ? 
So  far  from  it,  there  is  power  in  that  Constitution  to 
hold  back  Pennsylvania  and  Virginia  from  the  com 
mission  of  these  crimes. 

Every  person  remembers  one  part  of  the  tenth 
amendment  of  the  Constitution  ;  and  every  person 
seems  to  have  forgotten  the  other.  Every  day  do  we 
hear,  that  powers  are  reserved  by  the  Constitution  to 
the  States ;  but,  no  day,  do  we  hear,  that  powers  are 
"prohibited  by  it  to  the  States."  Now,  among  those 


THE   NEBKASKA   BILL.  169 

prohibited  powers,  is  that  of  classing  men  with,  horses 
and  hogs. 

Let  it  not  be  implied  from  what  I  said,  a  minute  ago, 
that  I  would  admit  the  competence  of  a  State  Govern 
ment  to  enslave  its  subjects,  provided  the  Federal  Con 
stitution  had  not  curtailed  its  sovereignty.  No  human 
Government,  however  unlimited  its  sovereignty,  has 
authority  to  reduce  man  to  a  chattel — to  transform 
immortality  into  merchandise.  And  cannot  I  add  with 
truth,  and  without  irreverence,  that  such  authority 
comes  not  within  the  limits  even  of  the  Divine  Govern 
ment? 

Nor  let  it  be  implied,  that  I  am  indifferent  to  State 
rights.  I  am  strenuous  for  their  maintenance :  and  I 
would  go  to  the  extreme  verge  of  the  Constitution  to 
swell  their  number.  But  there  I  stop.  The  province  of 
the  State  shall  not,  with  my  consent,  encroach  upon 
the  province  of  the  Nation  ;  nor  upon  ground  denied 
to  both  by  the  law  of  God  and  the  limits  of  Civil  Gov 
ernment. 

It  is,  sometimes,  said,  that  the  amendment,  on  which 
I  have  spoken  so  extensively,  refers  to  criminal  prose 
cutions,  only.  But  what  if  this  were  so  ?  It  would, 
nevertheless,  cover  the  case  of  the  slave.  You,  surely, 
would  not  have  a  man  stripped  of  his  liberty,  ay,  and 
of  his  manhood  too,  who  is  not  charged  with  crime. 
The  Government,  which  says,  that  it  will  make  him, 
who  is  not  a  criminal,  a  slave,  confesses  itself  to  be 
unutterably  unjust  and  base. 
8 


170  THE  NEBRASKA  BILL. 

The  Constitution,  as  has  been  seen  in  the  course  of 
my  argument,  forbids  slavery.  Its  pro-slavery  charac 
ter  has  been  assumed.  What  is  there,  indeed,  that 
will  make  for  slavery,  that  slavery  does  not  assume?  ~No 
wonder  !  It  is  itself  but  a  mere  assumption — and  the 
most  monstrous  assumption.  The  only  wonder  is — 
and  the  sorrow  is  as  great  as  the  wonder — that  the 
American  people  should  be  in  the  miserable,  servile 
habit  of  yielding  to  all  these  bare-faced  assumptions  of 
slavery.  The  speakers  on  both  sides  of  this  bill  have 
taken  it  for  granted,  that  the  Constitution  is  pro-slav 
ery: — and  when  the  honorable  gentleman  of  North 
Carolina  [Mr.  Clingnian]  coolly  said  :  "Every  single 
provision  in  that  instrument,  (the  Constitution,)  is  pro- 
slavery,  that  is,  for  the  protection  and  defence  and 
increase  of  slavery,"  no  one  seemed  to  doubt  the  truth 
of  what  he  was  saying,  any  more  than  if  he  had  been 
reading  Christ's  Sermon  on  the  Mount.  And,  yet,  the 
instrument,  of  which  the  honorable  gentleman  affirmed 
all  this,  refused  to  pollute  its  pages  with  the  word 
"slavery,"  or  even  with  a  word,  (servitude,)  which 
might,  possibly,  be  construed  into  slavery !  Moreover, 
the  instrument  avows,  that  "  to  secure  the  blessings  of 
liberty,"  is  among  its  objects.  Though  administered 
to  uphold  the  curse  of  slavery,  the  Constitution  was, 
nevertheless,  made  "  to  secure  the  blessings  of  liberty." 
Hence,  the  declaration,  in  the  former  part  of  my  speech, 

that  THEEE  IS  NO  LAW  FOR  AMERICAN"  SLAVERY,   IS 

TRUE.     But  I  must  not  stop  here.     It  would  be  dis- 


THE  NEBRASKA  BILL.  171 

ingenuous  to  do  so.  My  stopping  here  would  imply, 
that,  if  I  found  slavery  in  the  Constitution,  I  would 
admit  its  legality.  But  I  would  not — -just  as  I  would 
not  admit  the  legality  of  murder,  even  though  it  were 
embodied  in  all  the  organic  laws  of  all  the  nations.  I 
proceed,  therefore,  to  declare,  and  to  argue  the  justice 
of  the  declaration,  that 

THESE  NOT  ONLY  is  NO  LAW  FOR  AMERICAN  SLAV 
ERY,  BUT  THAT  THERE  CAN  BE  NO  LAW  EITHER  FOR 

AMERICAN,  OR  ANY  OTHER  SLAVERY. 

1.  Law  is,  simply,  the  rule  or  demand  of  natural 
justice.  Justice  is  its  very  soul:  and  it  is,  therefore, 
never  to  be  identified  with  naked  and  confessed  injust 
ice.  Law  is  for  the  protection — not  for  the  destruction 
— of  rights.  Well  does  the  Declaration  of  Independ 
ence  say,  that  "to  secure  these  rights,  Governments 
are  instituted  among  men."  They  are  instituted,  not 
to  destroy,  but  to  secure,  these  rights.  It  is  pertinent 
to  the  case  in  hand,  to  see  what  are  "these  rights," 
which  the  Declaration  specifies :  They  are  "  life,  lib 
erty,  and  the  pursuit  of  happiness."  These  it  declares 
to  be  "  inalienable."  These  are  not  conventional  rights, 
which,  in  its  wisdom,  Government  may  give,  or  take 
away,  at  pleasure.  But  these  are  natural,  inherent, 
essential  rights,  which  Government  has  nothing  to  do 
with,  but  to  protect.  I  am  not  saying,  that  men  can 
not  forfeit  these  rights.  But  I  do  say,  that  they  can 
lose  them,  only  by  forfeiting  them.  I  admit,  that  a 


172  THE  NEBRASKA  BILL, 

man  may  forfeit  liberty  by  his  crimes  ;  and  that  it  will 
be  the  duty  of  Government  to  prevent  his  reenjoy- 
ment  of  it.  I  remark,  incidentally,  that,  though  a  man 
may  forfeit  liberty,  this  is  quite  another  thing  from  his 
deserving  slavery.  Slavery  unmans:  and  the  worst 
man,  no  more  than  the  best  man,  deserves  to  be  un 
manned.  But  to  return  from  this  digression  to  my 
declaration,  that  law  is  for  the  protection  of  rights — I 
proceed  to  say,  that  slavery  annihilates  all  the  rights  of 
its  victim.  For,  in  striking  down  the  right  of  self-own 
ership,  it  strikes  down  that  great  centre-right,  to  which 
all  other  rights  are  tied ;  by  which  all  other  rights  are 
sustained;  and,  in  the  fall  of  which,  all  other  rights 
fall.  Murder  itself  cannot  be  a  more  sweeping  de 
stroyer  of  rights  than  is  slavery— for  murder  itself  is 
but  one  of  the  elements  in  the  infernal  compound  of 
slavery. 

Slavery  being  such,  as  I  have  described  it,  there,  of 
necessity,  can  be  no  law  for  it.  To  give  to  it  one  of  the 
mildest  of  its  proper  and  characteristic  names,  it  is  a  con 
spiracy — a  conspiracy  of  the  strong  against  the  weak. 
Now  all  are  aware,  that  there  is  law  to  put  down  a  con 
spiracy — but  who  ever  heard  of  law  to  uphold  a  conspir 
acy  ?  Said  "William  Pitt,  when  speaking  in  the  British 
Parliament,  of  the  African  slave-trade :  "  Any  con 
tract  for  the  promotion  of  this  trade  must,  in  his  opin 
ion,  have  been  void  from  the  beginning,  being  an  out 
rage  upon  justice,  and  only  another  name  for  fraud, 
robbery,  and  murder."  But  the  slave-trade  is  all  one 


THE  NEBKASKA  BILL.  173 

with  slavery :  nothing  more  and  nothing  less  than  slav 
ery.  Said  Granville  Sharp,  when  speaking  of  slavery 
and  the  slave-trade :  "No  authority  on  earth  can  ever 
render  such  enormous  iniquities  legal."  Says  Henry 
Brougham :  "  Tell  me  not  of  rights ;  talk  not  of  the 
property  of  the  planter  in  his  slaves.  I  deny  the  right. 
I  acknowledge  not  the  property.  The  principles,  the 
feelings,  of  our  common  nature,  rise  in  rebellion  against 
it.  Be  the  appeal  made  to  the  understanding,  or  the 
heart,  the  sentence  is  the  same  that  rejects  it.  In  vain, 
you  tell  me  of  laws,  that  sanction  such  a  crime !  There 
is  a  law  above  all  the  enactments  of  human  codes — the 
same  throughout  the  world — the  same  in  all  times — such 
as  it  was  before  the  daring  genius  of  Columbus  pierced 
the  night  of  ages,  and  opened  to  one  world  the  sources  of 
power,  wealth,  and  knowledge ;  to  another,  all  unutter 
able  woes,  such  as  it  is  at  this  day.  It  is  the  law  writ 
ten  by  the  finger  of  God  on  the  heart  of  man,  and  by 
that  law,  unchangeable  and  eternal,  while  men  despise 
fraud,  and  loathe  rapine,  and  abhor  blood,  they  will 
reject  with  indignation  the  wild  and  guilty  fantasy,  that 
man  can  hold  property  in  man !" 

To  hold  that  slavery,  which  is  the  crime  of  crimes  and 
abomination  of  abominations,  is  capable  of  legalization, 
is,  a  preeminent  confounding  of  injustice  with  justice, 
and  anti-law  with  law.  Knowingly  to  admit  into  the 
theory  and  definition  of  law  even  a  single  element  of 
wrong,  is  virtually  to  say,  that  there  is  no  law.  It  is 


174  THE   NEBRASKA  BILL. 

virtually  to  say,  that  earth  is  without  rule,  and  heaven 
is  without  rule ;  and  that  the  light,  order  and  harmony 
of  the  Universe  may  give  place  to  darkness,  disorder, 
and  chaos.  But  if  such  is  the  effect  of  alloying  law 
with  only  one  wrong,  how  emphatically. must  it  be  the 
effect  of  regarding  as  law  that,  which  is  nothing  but 
wrong ! 

I  am  advancing  no  new  doctrine,  when  I  say,  that 
essential  wrongs  cannot  be  legalized.  This  was  the 
doctrine,  until  supplanted  by  the  absurd  and  atheistic 
maxim,  that  "Parliament  is  omnipotent."  Even  Black- 
stone,  with  all  his  cowardice  in  the  presence  of  that 
maxim,  repeatedly  confessed,  that  human  legislation  is 
void,  if  it  conflicts  with  Divine  legislation.  And  if  we 
go  back  to  the  times  of  Lord  Coke,  we  find  him  quoting 
many  cases,  in  which  it  was  held,  that  the  common  law, 
or,  in  other  words,  common  sense,  or  common  justice, 
can  nullify  an  act  of  Parliament.  He  says:  "It  ap- 
peareth  in  our  books,  that  in  many  cases  the  common 
law  shall  control  acts,  of  Parliament,  and  sometimes 
shall  adjudge  them  to  be  utterly  void:  for  when  an  Act 
of  Parliament  is  against  common  right  and  reason, 
or  repugnant,  or  impossible  to  be  performed,  the  com 
mon  law  shall  control  this,  and  adjudge  such  act  to 
be  void.'' — [Dr.  Bonhamls  Case  in  Life  of  Lord  BaconJ] 

I  would  add,  in  this  connection,  that  the  province  of 
a  human  legislature  does  not  extend  even  to  all  lawful 
and  innocent  things.  That  it  is  commensurate  with  the 


THE   NEBRASKA   BILL.  175 

whole  field  of  human  interests  and  obligations,  is  a 
very  great,  though  a  very  common  mistake.  It  covers 
but  a  small  portion  of  that  field.  Not  only  are  crimes 
incapable  of  being  legalized,  but  there  are  numberless 
relations  and  duties,  which  are  ever  to  be  held  sacred 
from  the  invasion  and  control  of  the  human  legislature. 
For  instance,  what  we  shall  eat  and  wear  is  a  subject 
foreign  to  human  legislation.  What  shall  be  the  cha 
racter  of  the  intercourse  between  parent  and  child  is  no 
less  so.  But  if  there  is  a  natural,  lawful,  and  innocent 
relation,  for  which  the  human  legislature  may  not  pre 
scribe,  how  much  less  is  it  authorized  to  create  the 
unnatural,  monstrous,  and  supremely  guilty  relations  of 
slavery ! 

2.  Law  is  not  an  absurdity,  but  is  one  with  reason. 
Hence,  in  point  of  fact,  a  legislature  cannot  make  law. 
It  can  declare  what  is  law.  It  can  legislate  in  behalf  of 
that  only,  which  is  already  law.  Legislation  for  liberty 
may  be  law,  because  liberty  itself  is  law.  But  legisla 
tion  for  slavery  cannot  possibly  be  law,  because  slavery 
is  not  law.  That  cannot  be  law,  the  subject-matter  of 
which  is  not  law.  The  great  fundamental  and  control 
ling  law  in  the  case  of  a  man  is,  that  he  is  a  man.  The 
great  fundamental  and  controlling  law  in  the  case  of  a 
horse  is,  that  he  is  a  horse.  The  great  fundamental 
and  controlling  law  in  the  case  of  a  stone  is,  that  it  is  a 
stone.  All  legislation,  therefore,  which  proceeds  on  the 
assumption,  that  a  stone  is  wood,  is  absurd  and  void. 


176  THE   NEBRASKA   BILL. 

So,  too,  all  legislation,  that  proceeds  on  the  assumption, 
that  a  horse  is  a  hog,  is  absurd  and  void.  And,  so  too, 
and  far  more  emphatically,  all  legislation,  which  pro 
ceeds  on  the  assumption,  that  a  man  is  a  thing — an  im 
mortal  God-like  being  a  commodity — is  absurd  and 
void.  But  such  is  the  legislation  in  behalf  of  slavery. 
The  statutes  of  our  slave  States,  which,  with  infinite 
blasphemy,  as  well  as  with  infinite  cruelty,  authorize 
the  enslaving  of  men,  say,  that  "the  slave  shall  be 
deemed,  held,  taken,  to  be  a  chattel  to  all  intents,  con 
structions,  and  purposes  whatsoever:"  that  "the  slave 
is  entirely  subject  to  the  will  of  his  master:"  and  that 
"he  can  possess  nothing,  but  what  must  belong  to  his 
master." 

We  are  amazed  at  the  madness  of  the  Eoman  ruler, 
who  claimed  for  his  favorite  horse  the  respect,  which  is 
due  to  the  dignity  of  manhood.  But  the  madness  of 
the  American  ruler,  who  sinks  the  man  into  the  horse, 
is  certainly  no  less  than  that  of  the  Eoman  ruler,  who 
exalted  the  horse  into  the  man. 

There  can  be  no  law  against  the  law  of  nature.  But 
a  law  to  repeal  the  law  of  gravitation  would  be  no 
greater  absurdity  than  a  law  to  repeal  any  part  of  the 
everlasting  moral  code.  The  distinction  of  higher  and 
lower  law  is  utterly  untenable,  and  of  most  pernicious 
influence.  There  is  but  one  law  for  time  and  eter 
nity — but  one  law  for  earth  and  heaven. 

I  must  not,  then,  know,  as  law,  or,  in  other  words,  aa 


THE  NEBRASKA  BILL.  177 

vnsdom  and  reason- — but  I  must  reject,  as  anti-law,  and 
nonsense,  and  madness — that,  which  calls  on  me  to  re 
gard  a  stone  as  a  stump,  a  horse  as  a  hog,  a  man  as  a 
thing.  I  must  not  undertake  to  conform  myself  to  such 
ideal  and  impossible  transformations.  But  I  must 
accord  to  every  being,  animate  or  inanimate,  the  nature 
given  to  it  by  its  Great  Maker.  I  must  deny,  that  the 
being  made  in  the  image  of  God  can,  any  more  than 
God  Himself,  be  turned  into  a  slave.  I  must  deny, 
that  it  is  possible  for  human  enactments  to  transmute 
men  into  chattels,  and  to  annihilate  the  essential  and 
everlasting  distinction  between  immortality  and  pro 
perty.  I  must  deny,  that  there  is  truth  in  Henry 
Clay's  famous  declaration,  that  "that  is  property,  which 
the  law  (meaning  human  legislation)  makes  property." 
I  must  deny,  that  slavery  can  any  more  furnish  the 
elements  of  law,  than  darkness  can  be  changed  into 
light,  or  hell  into  heaven.  I  must  deny,  that  the  fact 
of  a  slave  is  philosophically  and  really,  a  possible  fact. 
I  must  deny,  that  man  can  lose  his  nature,  either  in 
time  or  eternity.  Let  slavery  and  slave-legislation  do 
their  worst  upon  him ;  let  them  do  their  utmost  to  un 
man  him ;  he  is  still  a  man.  Nor,  is  it  whilst  he  is  in 
the  flesh  only,  that  his  manhood  is  indestructible.  It  is 
no  less  so,  after  he  has  "shuffled  off  this  mortal  coil." 
When  "the  heavens  shall  pass  away  with  a  great  noise, 
and  the  elements  shall  melt  with  fervent  heat ;  the  earth 
also,  and  the  works,  that  are  therein,"  and  all  that  is,  or 
8* 


178  THE  NEBRASKA  BILL. 

can  be,  property,  "shall  be  burnt  up,"  the  deathless 
spirit  of  man,  unchanged  and  unchangeable,  may  stand 
upon  the  ashes  and  exclaim:  "I  am  still  a  man — I  have 
lost  nothing  of  my  manhood." 

I -have  in  other  parts,  as  well  as  in  this  part  of  my 
speech,  carried  the  idea,  that  slavery,  in  its  theory,  is 
the  conversion  of  men  into  things.  It  was  right  for  me 
to  do  so.  Such  conversion  is  the  sole  essence  of  slavery. 
This,  and  this  alone,  distinguishes  it  from  every  other 
servitude.  In  point  of  fact,  slavery  is  not  necessarily, 
and,  indeed,  is  not  at  all,  by  any  just  definition  of  the 
word,  servitude.  Let  the  life  of  the  slave  be  all  idleness ; 
and  let  him  be  "clothed  in  purple  and  fine  linen,  and 
fare  sumptuously  every  day;"  and  he  is  still  as  abso 
lutely  a  slave,  as  if  he  were  in- the  hardest  lot  of  a  slave. 
"Whatever  his  privileges,  if  he  have  no  rights — however 
indulgent  his  treatment,  if  he  is  owned  by  another, 
instead  of  himself — he  is  still  a  slave,  and  but  a  slave. 
I  wish  it  to  be  borne  in  mind,  that  I  arraign  slavery,  not 
because  it  withholds  wages,  and  marriage,  and  parental 
control  of  children,  and  the  Bible  and  heaven,  from  its 
victims.  I  do  not  arraign  it  for  denying  these,  or  any 
other  rights,  to  a  mere  chattel.  Such  denial  is  perfect 
ly  consistent.  A  chattel  is  entitled  to  no  rights — can 
have  no  rights.  What  I  arraign  slavery  for,  is  for  its 
making  a  man  a  chattel.  I  do  not  arraign  slavery  for 
the  terrible  enactments,  which,  for  its  security,  it  puts 
into  the  statute-book;  nor  for  the  terrible  advertise- 


THE   NEBKASKA  BILL.  179 

ments  which  it  puts  into  the  newspapers.  These  enact 
ments  are  the  natural  and  necessary  outgrowth  of  the 
blasphemous  assumption,  that  man,  with  all  his  great 
attributes  and  destiny,  is  capable  of  being  reduced  to  a 
thing.  These  advertisements,  some  of  which  are  offers 
of  large  bounties  for  the  recovery  of  fugitive  slaves,  or 
for  the  production  of  their  dissevered  heads ;  some  of 
which  contain  revolting  descriptions  of  their  slavery- 
scarred  and  mangled  persons  ;  and  some  of  which  con 
tain  offers  of  trained  bloodhounds  to  hunt  them — these 
advertisements  are,  in  no  wise,  to  be  wondered  at.  Slav 
ery  itself — not  its  fruits  and  incidents — is  the  wonder. 
That  man  should  be  found  so  perverted  and  depraved,  as 
to  sink  his  equal  brother  into  slavery — it  is  this,  and 
nothing  incidental  to  it,  or  resulting  from  it,  that  should 
fill  us  with  astonishment.  In  reducing  a  man  to  a  thing, 
we  have  not  only  committed  the  highest  crime  against 
him,  but  we  have  committed  all  crimes  against  him ; 
for  we  have  thrown  open  the  door — the  door  never 
again  to  be  shut — to  the  commission  of  all  crimes 
against  him. 

Perhaps,  such  language,  as  I  have  just  been  using, 
will  occasion  the  remark,  that  I  am  prejudiced  against 
the  South.  But  I  know,  that  I  am  not.  I  love  the 
South  equally  well  with  the  North.  My  heart  goes 
out  as  strongly  to  Southern,  as  to  Northern  men,  on 
this  floor.  Far  am  I  from  attributing  to  Southern 
men  a  peculiarly  severe  nature.  I  had  rather  attribute 


180  THE   NEBRASKA   BILL. 

to  them  a  peculiarly  generous  nature.     I  believe,  that 
there  is  not  another  people  on  the  earth,  in  whose  hands 
the  system  of  slavery  would  work  more  kindly — with 
less  of  cruelty  and  horror.     Nowhere  can  it  work  well 
— for  there  is  nothing  in  it  to  work  well.     Nowhere 
can  it  be  unattended  with  the  most  frightful  and  deplor 
able  abuses — for  it  is  itself  the  most  stupendous  abuse. 
3.  My  argument,  in  the  third  and  last  place,  to 
prove,  that  THERE  CAN  BE  NO  LAW,  EITHER  FOR  AMERI 
CAN,  OR  ANY  OTHER  SLAVERY,  is  that,  that  is  not  law, 
and  is  never,  never,  to  be  acknowledged  as  law,  which 
men  cannot  regard  as  law,  and  use  as  law,  without 
being  dishonest.     Both  heaven  and  earth  forbid  that, 
which  cannot  be,  but  at  the  expense  of  integrity.     Now, 
in  the  conscience  of  universal  man,  slavery  cannot  be 
law — cannot  be  invested  with  the  claims  and  sacredness 
of  law.     Hence,  to  regard  it  as  law,  and  use  it  as  law,  is 
to  be  dishonest.     There  may  be  little,  or  no,  conscious 
ness  of  the  dishonesty.     Nevertheless,  the  dishonesty  is 
there.     I  said,  that  the  consciousness,  that  slavery  can 
not  be  legalized,  is  universal.     Let  me  not  be  misun 
derstood  in  what  I  said.     I  did  not  mean,  that  there 
are  none,  who  believe,  that  the  slavery  of  others  can  be 
legalized.     I  admit,  that  thousands  believe  it.    At  the 
same  time,  however,  I  affirm,  that  not  one  of  them 
all  would  believe  slavery  to  be  a  thing  of  law,  and  enti 
tled  to  the  respect  of  law,  were  it  brought  to  war  against 
himself.    The  presence  of  an  enactment  for  slavery  would 


THE   NEBRASKA   BILL.  181 

inspire  with  no  sense  of  the  sacred  obligations  of  law — 
with  no  sense  of  the  honor  and  obedience  due  to  law — 
him,  who  should  be  claimed  under  it.  Now,  how  such 
a  person  is  to  be  regarded — whether  as  believing  the 
laws  for  slavery  to  be  valid  or  void,  real  and  true  laws, 
or  nominal  and  no  laws — is  to  be  decided,  not  accord 
ing  to  his  view  of  them,  when  applied  to  others,  but 
according  to  his  sense  of  them,  when  brought  home  to 
himself.  Self-application  is  the  testing  crucible  in  all 
such  cases. 

If  an  American  gentleman  is  so  unfortunate,  as  to  be 
brought  under  the  yoke  of  slavery  in  one  of  the  Bar- 
bary  States ;  and  if,  notwithstanding,  the  slavery  is  de 
creed  by  the  supreme  power  of  the  State,  he  breaks 
away  from  it,  and  thus  pours  contempt  upon  the  decree 
and  the  source  of  it ;  then,  obviously,  on  his  return  to 
America,  he  cannot  acknowledge  slavery  to  be  law, 
and  yet  be  honest.  If  it  is  true,  that  what  is  law  we 
are  no  more  at  liberty  to  break  in  a  foreign  country 
than  in  our  own  country,  so  also  is  it  true,  that  what  is 
too  abominable  and  wicked  to  be  law  in  one  part  of  the 
world  is  too  abominable  and  wicked  to  be  law  in  any 
other  part  of  the  world.  Should^this  gentleman  be 
elected  to  Congress,  he  will  be  dishonest,  if  he  legis 
lates  for  slavery.  Should  he  take  his  seat  upon  the 
bench,  he  will  be  dishonest,  if  he  administers  a  statute 
for.  slavery.  And  no  less  dishonest  will  he  be,  if,  as  a 
juror,  or  marshal,  or  as  President  of  the  United  States, 


182  THE  NEBRASKA  BILL. 

he  shall  contribute  to  the  enforcement  of  such  statute. 
But  every  American  gentleman  would,  like  this  one, 
break  away  from  slavery  if  he  could  ;  and,  hence,  every 
American  gentleman,  who  recognizes  slavery  as  law, 
does  therein  stigmatize  and  condemn  himself.  Possi 
bly,  however,  there  may  be  some  American  gentleman, 
who  is  inspired  with  such  a  sense  of  the  fitness  and 
beauty  of  slavery,  as  to  welcome  its  chains  about  his 
own  person.  If  there  is  such  a  one,  "  let  him  speak — 
for  him  have  I  offended." 

That  no  one  can  honestly  recognize  a  law  for  slavery, 
is  on  the  same  principle,  that  no  one  can  honestly  re 
cognize  a  law  for  murder.  But  there  are  innumerable 
things,  which  all  men  hold  cannot  be  legalized.  I  ven 
ture  the  remark,  that,  among  all  the  Judges  of  this 
land,  who,  ever  and  anon,  are  dooming  their  fellow- 
men  to  the  pit  of  slavery,  there  is  not  one,  who  could 
be  honest  in  administering  even  a  sumptuary  law — for 
there  is  not  one  of  them,  who,  in  his  own  person,  would 
obey  such  a  law.  How  gross  is  their  hypocrisy !  They 
affect  to  believe,  that  Government  has  power  to  legalize 
slavery — to  turn  men  into  things: — and  yet  deny, 'that 
Government  may  go  so  far,  as  to  prescribe  what  men 
shall  wear !  Government  may  do  what  it  will  with  the 
bodies  and  souls  of  men : — but  to  meddle  with  their 
clothes — oh,  that  is  unendurable  usurpation ! ! ! 

If,  then,  I  am  right  in  saying,  that  men  cannot  hon 
estly  recognize  legislation  for  slavery,  as  law :  cannot 


THE  NEBRASKA  BILL.  183 

do  so,  without  palpably  violating  that  great  law  of 
"honesty,  which  requires  us  to  do  unto  others,  as  we 
would  have  others  do  unto  us :  if,  then,  I  am  right  in 
declaring,  that,  in  strict  truth,  there  is  not,  in  all  the 
broad  earth,  one  pro-slavery  man  :  but  that  every  man, 
when  called  to  make  his  bed  in  the  hell  of  slavery,  be 
trays,  in  the  agonies  of  his  soul  and  the  quaking  of  his 
limbs,  the  fact,  that  he  is  a  thorough  abolitionist : — if, 
I  say,  I  am  right  in  all  this,  then  does  it  irresistibly  fol 
low,  that  I  am  also  right,  in  my  position,  THAT  THERE 

CAN    BE    NO    LAW,    EITHER    FOR  AMERICAN,    OR  ANY 

OTHER  SLAVERY.  I  am  right  in  this  position,  because, 
that,  by  no  reasonable  theory,  or  definition,  of  law,  can 
that  be  called  law,  which  is  incapable  of  being  adminis 
tered  honestly.  The  fact,  that  men  must  necessarily 
be  dishonest  in  carrying  it  out,  is,  of  itself,  the  most 
conclusive  and  triumphant  argument,  that  it  is  not  law. 
To  take  the  opposite  ground,  and  to  claim,  that  to  be 
law,  which  every  man,  when  properly  tested,  denies  is 
law,  is  to  insult  all  true  law,  and  Him,  who  is  the 
source  of  all  true  law.  I  conclude,  under  this  head, 
with  the  remark,  that,  the  question,  whether  slavery  is, 
or  is  not  to  be  known  as  law,  resolves  itself  into  a  ques 
tion  of  simple  honesty. 

I  must  say  a  few  words  to  protect  what  I  have  said 
from  the3  misapprehension,  that  I  counsel  trampling  on 
all  wrong  legislation.  I  am  very  far  from  giving  such 
counsel.  ISTo  wrong  legislation,  that  is  at  all  endurable, 


184  THE  NEBRASKA  BILL. 

would  I  resist.  And,  I  add,  that  I  would  be  patient 
with  almost  every  degree  of  wrong  legislation,  provided 
it  is  legislation  in  behalf  of  what  is  lawful,  and  of  what 
it  is  competent  to  legislate  upon.  Imprisonment  for 
debt  is  wrong  legislation — very  wrong  and  very  cruel 
legislation.  But,  inasmuch  as  the  relation  of  debtor 
and  creditor  comes  within  the  cognizance  of  the  legisla 
ture,  I  will  not  treat  such  legislation  as  void.  The 
legislature  has  a  right  end  in  view.  It  is  to  help  the 
creditor  get  justice.  Its  error  consists  in  selecting 
wrong  means  to  this  end  ;  and  in  putting  a  wrong 
remedy  into  the  hands  of  the  creditor.  I  am  to  treat 
this  action  of  the  legislature  as  a  mistake — and  a  mis 
take,  which  I  am  not  to  go  beyond  the  limits  of  per 
suasion  to  seek  to  correct.  The  paying  of  one's  debts 
is  justice — is  law.  Enactments  to  enforce  this  justice 
and  this  law  may,  some  of  them,  be  improper — such  as 
compelling  payment  by  the  terrors  of  imprisonment. 
But,  as  they  are  enactments  to  enforce  justice  and  what 
is  itself  law,  I  must  be  very  slow  to  denounce  them,  as 
no  law.  So,  too,  if  my  Government  declare  war 
against  a  nation — I  am  not  to  treat  the  Government, 
nor  the  declaration,  however  unjust  it  may  be,  with 
contempt.  I  must  remember,  that  Government  has 
jurisdiction  of  national  controversies,  and  that  the  re 
dress  of  national  wrongs  is  justice — is  law.  Govern 
ment  may  err  in  its  modes  of  redress.  It  may  resort  to 
the  sword,  when  it  should  confine  itself  to  the  exertion 


THE  NEBRASKA   BILL.  185 

of  moral  influence.  The  cause,  nevertheless,  which  it 
is  prosecuting,  may  be  one  of  unmingled  justice.  Like 
every  good  cause,  it  may  itself  be  law ;  and,  therefore, 
Government  would  not  be  chargeable  with  impertinence 
and  usurpation  for  taking  it  in  hand.  But,  how  differ 
ent  from  all  this  is  it,  when  Government  sets  up  slavery ! 
In  that  case,  the  subject-matter  of  its  action  is,  most 
emphatically,  not  law.  In  that  case,  most  emphatically, 
it  has  gone  beyond  its  province.  To  Government  be 
longs  the  adjustment  of  the  relations  between  creditor 
and  debtor ;  and  it  is  for  Government  to  dispose  of  na 
tional  controversies.  But,  when  Government  under 
takes  the  crime  and  absurdity  of  turning  men  into 
things — of  chattellizing,  instead  of  protecting,  a  portion 
of  its  subjects — it  is,  then,  as  far  out  of  its  place,  as  it 
can  be.  To  such  an  outrage,  no  submission  is  due.  It 
is  to  be  resisted  at  every  hazard.  To  trample  upon 
such  lawlessness  is  to  be  law-abiding,  instead  of  law- 
breaking.  To  rebel  against  such  a  Government  is  not 
to  be  revolutionary  and  mobocratic.  The  Government 
itself  is  the  revolutionary  a-nd  mobocratic  party.  If  the 
decree  should  go  forth  from  our  Government,  that  our 
Irish  population  be  murdered,  the  decree  would,  of 
course,  be  trodden  under  foot.  But  who  denies,  that  it 
should  be  as  promptly  and  indignantly  trodden  under 
foot,  were  it  a  decree  for  their  enslavement  ? 

My  argument  to  show,  THAT  THEEE  NOT  ONLY  is 
NO  LAW  FOR  AMERICAN  SLAVERY,  BUT  THAT  THERE 


186  THE  NEBEASKA  BILL. 

CAN    BE    NO    LAW    EITHER    FOE    AMERICAN,    OE    ANY 

OTHEE  SLAVEEY,  is  EKDED.  It  is  in  place,  however, 
to  say,  that  the  recognition  by  the  American  people  of 
slavery  as  law,  is,  of  itself,  sufficient  to  account  for  their 
loss  of  reverence  for  law.  This  reverence  is,  necessa 
rily,  destroyed  by  the  habit  of  confounding  sham  law 
with  true  law — by  the  habit,  of  accepting,  as  law,  the 
mere  forms  of  law,  where  justice,  truth,  reason,  and 
every  element,  which  goes  to  make  up  the  soul  of  law, 
is  lacking.  This  reverence  must  soon  die  out  of  the 
heart  of  the  people,  who  treat,  as  law,  that,  which  they 
know,  is  not  law ;  who,  in  the  holy  and  commanding 
name  of  law,  buy  and  sell,  or  sanction  the  buying  and 
selling,  of  their  fellow-men ;  and  who,  in  all  their  life, 
live  out  the  debasing  lie,  that  so  monstrous  and  dia 
bolical  a  thing,  as  slavery,  is  entitled  to  the  shelter  and 
honor  of  law.  This  reverence  is  little  felt  by  those, 
who  yield  to  the  absurdity,  that  law  and  nature  are 
opposite  to  each  other ;  and  that,  whilst,  by  nature,  a 
man  is  an  immortal,  by  law  he  may  be  but  a  thing. 
It  is  little  felt  by  those,  who  regard  law  as  a  mere  con 
ventionalism,  which  may  be  one  thing  in  one  place, 
and  another  in  another ;  one  thing  at  one  period,  and 
another  at  another.  They,  and  they  only,  have  ade 
quate  and  adoring  conceptions  of  law,  who  believe,  that 
it  is  one  with  nature,  and  that  it  is  the  same  in  every 
part  of  the  earth,  in  every  period  of  time,  and  "eternal 
in  the  heavens."  They,  and  they  only,  have  such  con- 


THE  NEBKASKA  BILL.  187 

ceptions,  who,  instead  of  regarding  law  as  synonymous 
with  all  the  enactments  of  foolish  and  wicked  men, 
identify  it  with  unchangeable  and  everlasting  right. 

How,  for  instance,  can  the  American  people  perceive 
the  beauty  and  preciousness  of  law,  whilst  recognizing, 
as  law,  the  Fugitive  Slave  Act  ? — and  whilst  stigmatiz 
ing,  and  persecuting  the  handful  of  men,  who  have  the 
integrity  and  the  bravery  to  resist  it  ?  Why  should 
not  that  handful  fly  as  swift  to  the  rescue  of  their 
brother,  who  is  in  the  peril  of  being  reduced  to  slavery, 
as  to  the  rescue  of  their  brother,  who  cries,  "  Murder?" 
Ten  thousand  enactments  for  murder  would  not  hinder 
them  in  the  latter  case.  Ten  thousand  enactments  for 
slavery  should  not  hinder  them,  in  the  former.  In 
each  case,  the  rescue  would  be  not  ly  a  mob  ;  "but  from 
a  mob. 

It  has,  now,  been  shown,  that  the  American  Govern 
ment  has  authority,  both  inside  and  outside  of  the  Con 
stitution — as  well  in  natural  and  universal  law,  as  in 
conventional  and  national  law — to  sweep  away  the 
Yfhole  of  American  slavery.  Will  it  avail  itself  of  this 
authority  to  do  this  work  ?  I  ask  not  whether  Grovern- 
ment  will  show  pity  to  the  slave — for  I  look  not  to 
Government  to  be  pitiful  to  the  slave,  or  to  any  other 
man.  I  look  to  Government  for  sterner  qualities  than 
pitv.  My  idea  of  a  true  Government  is  realized,  only 
in  proportion,  as  the  Government  is  characterized  by 
wisdom,  integrity,  strength.  To  hold  even  the  scales 


188  THE  NEBKASKA  BILL. 

of  justice  among  all  its  subjects,  and  between  them  and 
all  other  men  ;  and  to  strike  down  the  hand,  that  would 
make  them  uneven- — this,  and  this  only,  is  the  appro 
priate  work  of  Government. 

I  asked,  whether  the  American  Government  will 
abolish  slavery.  I  confess,  that  my  hope,  that  it  will, 
is  not  strong.  The  slave-owners  have  the  control  of 
this  nation,  and  I  fear,  that  they  will  keep  it.  It  is 
true,  that  they  are  a  comparative  handful  in  the  vast 
American  population  ;  and  that,  numbering  only  three 
hundred  thousand,  their  calling  themselves  "the  South" 
is  an  affectation  as  absurd  and  ridiculous,  as  it  would 
be  for  the  manufacturers  of  the  North  to  call  themselves 
"  the  North,"  or  the  rumsellers  of  the  North  to  call 
themselves  "  the  North."  It  is  true,  that  their  interests 
are  alien,  as  well  from  the  interests  of  the  South,  as 
from  the  interests  of  the  North  ;  and  that  slavery  is  the 
deadly  foe,  as  well  of  the  white  population  of  the  South, 
as  of  its  black  population.  Nevertheless,  in  the  present 
corrupt  state  of  the  public  sentiment,  the  slave-ownere 
are  able  to  control  the  nation.  They  are  mighty  by 
their  oneness.  Divided  they  may  be  in  everything  else 
— but  they  are  undivided  in  their  support  of  slavery. 
The  State  and  the  Church  are  both  in  their  hands.  A 
bastard  democracy,  accommodated  to  the  demands  of 
slavery,  and  tolerating  the  traffic  in  human  flesh,  is  our 
national  democracy  :  and  a  bastard  Christianity,  which 
endorses  this  basta,rd  democracy,  is  the  current  christ- 


THE  NEBKASKA  BILL.  189 

ianity  of  our  nation.  The  fatherhood  of  God  and  the 
brotherhood  of  man — ideas,  so  prominent  in  a  true 
democracy  and  a  true  Christianity — are  quite  foreign  to 
our  sham  democracy  and  our  sham  Christianity.  Ame 
rican  religion  is  a  huge  hypocrisy.  Whilst  to  the  im 
measurable  sinfulness  of  that  system,  which  forbids 
marriage,  and  the  reading  of  the  Bible,  and  which 
markets  men  as  beasts,  it  is  blind  as  a  bat,  it,  never 
theless,  draws  down  its  stupid  face,  and  pronounces  the 
shuffling  of  the  feet  to  music  to  be  a  great  sin.  The 
different  States  of  Christendom,  as  they  advance  in 
civilization  and  the  knowledge  of  human  rights,  are, 
one  after  another,  putting  away  slavery.  Even  the 
Bey  of  Tunis  puts  away  this  most  foul  and  guilty  thing, 
and  says,  that  he  does  so  "for  the  glory  of  mankind, 
and  to  distinguish  them  from  the  brute  creation."  But 
America,  poor  slavery-ridden  and  slavery-cursed  Ame 
rica,  retrogrades.  "Whilst  other  nations  grow  in  regard 
for  human  rights,  she  grows  in  contempt  for  them. 
Whilst  other  nations  rise  in  the  sunlight  of  civilization, 
she  sinks  in  the  night  of  barbarism.  Her  Congress 
sets  up  slavery  in  her  very  capital.  Her  Congress 
regulates  and  protects  the  coastwise  trade  in  slaves. 
Her  Congress  wages  unprovoked  and  plundering  wars 
for  the  extension  of  slavery.  Her  Congress  decrees, 
that  slaveholders  shall  have  the  range  of  all  America, 
in  which  to  reduce  men,  women,  and  children,  to  slav 
ery.  A.nd  her  President,  who  calls  slavery  an  "  ad- 


190  THE  NEBRASKA  BILL. 

mitted  right,"  was  shameless  enough  to  say,  in  his 
Inaugural,  that  the  Fugitive  Slave  Act,  which  his  pre 
decessor  was  shameless  enough  to  sign,  should  be 
"cheerfully"  enforced.  In  short,  the  Federal  Govern 
ment  is  now,  and  long  has  been,  at  work,  more  to 
uphold  slavery  than  to  do  anything  else,  or  even  all 
things  else.  The  great  slave-catcher  !  the  great  watch 
dog  of  slavery  ! — these  are  its  most  fitting  names,  in  its 
present  employment  and  degradation.  And,  yet,  not 
withstanding  all  this  devotion  of  the  Federal  Govern- 
nent  to  slavery,  and  the  iron  determination  of  the 
iave-owriers,  that  the  power  of  the  whole  nation  shall 
.)e  exerted  to  uphold  it ;  there,  nevertheless,  can  be  no 
remonstrance  from  the  North  against  slavery,  which  is 
iot  immediately  followed  by  the  truthless  and  impudent 
uply,  that  the  North  has  nothing  to  do  with  slavery ! 
Ti  at  the  American  people  and  American  Government 
havj  fallen  to  what  they  are,  is  not  to  be  wondered  at. 
It  is  kmt  the  natural  and  necessary  result  of  their  hav 
ing  fostered  and  fed,  for  more  than  half  a  century,  the 
monster  slavery.  Time  was,  when  we  might  have 
crushed  this  monster.  But,  now,  it  has  crushed  us. 
It  has  corriipted  us  to  such  an  extent,  that  there  is 
scarcely  a  sound  spot  left  in  us,  at  which  to  begin  to 
rally  opposition  to  it.  On  no  cheaper  condition  than 
this  can  slavery  be  clung  to.  If  we  will  be  slaveholders 
— and  such  are  the  Northern  as  well  as  the  Southern 
people — for  if  the  shve-owners  are  at  the  South,  the 


THE   NEBKASKA  BILL. 

people  of  the  North  are,  nevertheless,  more  emphatic 
ally,  because  more  efficiently,  the  slaveholders,  than  are 
the  people  of  the  South — if,  I  say,  we  will  be  slave 
holders,  we  must  take  the  evil  consequences  upon  our 
own  understandings  and  hearts,  and  not  be  surprised  at 
them.  Men  cannot  bind  the  degrading  chain  of  slavery 
around  their  brothers  without  at  the  same  time  binding 
and  degrading  themselves  with  it. 

How  melancholy  upon  our  country,  and,  through 
her,  upon  the  world,  has  been  the  influence  of  American 
slavery  !  In  the  beginning  of  our  national  existence, 
we  were  the  moral  and  political  light-house  of  the  world. 
The  nations,  "  which  sat  in  darkness,  saw  the  great 
light,"  and  rejoiced.  Sad  to  say,  we  were  ourselves  the 
first  to  dim  that  light  1  The  principles,  which  we  then 
enunciated,  electrified  the  nations.  Sad  to  say,  we 
were  ourselves  the  first  to  dishonor  those  principles ! 
Nothing,  so  much  as  American  slavery,  has  gathered 
darkness  upon  that  light.  Nothing,  so  much  as  Ameri 
can  slavery,  has  brought  disgrace  upon  those  principles, 
All  other  causes  combined  have  not  stood  so  effectually 
in  the  way  of  the  progress  of  republicanism,  as  the  glar 
ing  inconsistency  of  our  deeds  with  our  professions.  In 
the  house  of  her  friends,  Liberty  has  received  her  deepest 
stabs.  All  our  boasts  and  falsehoods  to  the  contrary 
notwithstanding,  there  is  no  Government  on  the  face  of 
the  earth  so  quick  as  our  own,  to  dread,  and  to  oppose, 
popular  movements  in  behalf  of  liberty  and  republican- 


192  THE  NEBRASKA  BILL. 

ism.  On  our  government,  more  than  on  all  other  causes 
put  together,  rests  the  responsibility  of  the  stopping  of 
the  Eevolution  in  the  Spanish  American  States.  We 
are  wont  to  say,  that  the  people  of  those  States  were  in* 
competent  to  perfect  that  Revolution.  This  is  a  piece 
of  our  hypocrisy.  The  instructions  of  our  Government 
and  the  discussions  in  our  National  Legislature,  in  re 
gard  to  the  Congress  of  Panama ;  our  threat  of  war 
against  Colombia  and  Mexico,  if  those  States  perse 
vered  in  carrying  forward  the  Revolution ;  and,  above 
all,  our  base  supplication  to  Russia  and  Spain  to  join  us 
in  stopping  the  wheels  of  that  Revolution ;  prove  conclu 
sively,  that  though  our  lying  lips  were  for  liberty,  our 
hearts,  all  the  time,  were  concerned  but  for  the  protec 
tion  of  slavery.  And,  in  the  case  of  Hayti — how  dead 
ly,  from  first  to  last,  has  been  the  enmity  of  our  Govern 
ment  to  the  cause  of  liberty  and  republicanism !  To 
learn  the  extent  of  that  enmity,  we  must  not  confine 
our  eye  to  the  haughty  and  persevering  refusal  of  our 
Government  to  recognize  the  independence  of  Hayti. 
"We  must  look  at  other  things  also — and  especially  at 
the  servile  compliance  of  our  Government  with  the  im 
pudent  and  arrogant  demand  of  Napoleon  to  carry  out 
his  plan  of  starving  the  Haytiens  into  submission. 

Our  Government  made  a  display  of  sympathy  with 
the  European  Revolutions  of  1848.  But  who  is  so 
stupid,  as  to  accord  sincerity  to  that  display,  when  he 
recollects,  that  the  very  first  fruit  of  the  very  first  of 


THE   NEBRASKA   BILL.  193 

these  Kevolutions  was  the  unqualified  abolition  of  all 
French  slavery — and  a  part  of  that  slavery  in  the  neigh 
borhood  of  our  own  ?  So  eager  was  our  Government 
to  appear  to  be  on  the  side  of  Hungary,  that  it  sent  out 
a  ship  for  Kossuth.  But,  long  ere  he  had  reached  our 
shores;  and,  especially,  whilst  he  was  making  his 
speeches  in  England  in  behalf  of  the  equal  rights  of  all 
men  ;  our  Government  found  out,  that  it  had  got  more 
than  it  contracted  for.  Kossuth's  principles  were  too 
radical.  Their  scope  was  quite  too  sweeping.  They 
no  more  spared  slavery  than  any  other  form  of  oppression. 
Yet,  Government  could  not  stop  Kossuth  on  his  way. 
Having  started  for  America,  he  must  be  suffered  to 
come  to  America.  But  how  great  his  disappointment, 
on  his  arrival !  "He  came  unto  his  own,  and  his  own 
received  him  not."  The  poor  man  was  willing  to  com 
promise  matters.  A  thousand  pities,  that  he  was.  He 
was  willing  to  ignore  slavery,  and  to  go  through  the 
whole  length  and  breadth  of  the  land,  seeing,  in  every 
man  he  met,  nothing  else  than  a  glorious  freeman. 
Alas,  what  a  mistake !  The  policy  of  the  Government 
"to  give  him  the  cold  shoulder"  was  fixed;  and  no 
concessions  or  humiliations  on  his  part  could  suffice  to 
repeal  it.  Kossuth  left  America — and  he  left  it,  no  less 
abundantly  than  painfully  convinced,  that  America  is 
one  thing  in  the  Declaration  of  Independence,  and 
another  in  what  has  succeeded  it ;  one  thing  in  her  pro 
fessions,  and  another  in  her  practice.  Will  Mazzini 
9 


194  THE  NEBRASKA  BILL. 

need  to  come  to  America  to  learn  this  lesson  ?  And, 
if  lie  comes,  will  lie  stoop  to  repeat  Kossuth's  mistakes  ? 
Thank  God !  Mazzini  has  already  identified  himself 
with  the  American  abolitionists.  May  he  find  himself 
rewarded  by  their  cordial  identification  of  themselves 
•with  the  oppressed  of  Europe  ! 

I  confessed,  that  my  hope  is  not  strong,  that  the 
American  Government  will  abolish  American  slavery. 
Far  otherwise  would  it  be,  however,  did  none,  but  slave 
owners,  justify  slavery.  They  would  soon  be  convert 
ed,  were  it  not,  that  the  mass  of  the  American  people 
fall  in  with  them,  and  flatter  them,  and  cry  peace,  when 
there  is  no  peace.  This  is  our  great  discouragement  in 
the  case.  The  advocates  of  total  abstinence  are  not  dis 
couraged.  They  would  be,  however,  if  they  found  the 
mass  of  the  sober  justifying  drunkards,  and  telling  them, 
that  drunkenness  is  right. 

I  said,  at  an  early  stage  of  my  remarks,  that  the  pre 
sent  attempt  of  slavery  to  clutch  all  the  unorganized 
territory  of  the  nation  affords  a  favorable  opportunity 
to  freedom  to  push  back  the  war  into  the  realm  of  slav 
ery.  I,  however,  did  not  add,  that  the  opportunity 
would  be  improved.  Nor  do  I  add  it  now : — for  I  am 
far  from  certain,  that  it  will  be.  For  many  years,  I  have 
had  scarcely  any  better  hope  for  American  slavery,  than 
that  it  would  come  to  a  violent  and  miserable  end. 
Their  habit  of  courting  and  worshipping  the  slave-power, 
and  of  acquiescing  in  its  demands,  has  corrupted  and 


THE   NEBRASKA   BILL.  195 

paralyzed  the  American  people  to  such,  a  degree,  as  to 
leave  little  room  to  hope,  that  they  will  bring  slavery 
to  a  peaceful  and  happy  termination.  I  confess,  some 
little  hope  of  such  termination  has  been  kindled  in  me 
by  this  new,  surprising,  and  enormous  demand  of  the 
slave-power.  I  confess,  that  I  have  thought  it  possible, 
that  this  demand  might  arouse  a  spirit,  which  could  be 
appeased  by  nothing  short  of  the  overthrow  of  the  whole 
system  of  slavery.  Should,  however,  such  a  spirit  be 
aroused,  I  fear  it  will  not  pervade  the  masses,  but  will 
be  confined  to  a  few.  It  is  true,  that  meetings  are  held, 
all  over  the  free  States,  to  protest  against  the  passage 
of  this  bill ;  and  that  the  press  of  those  States  is  almost 
universally  against  it.  But  neither  in  the  meetings,  nor 
in  the  press,  do  I  see  repentance.  They  abound  in  in 
dignation  toward  perfidy : — but  they  reveal  no  sorrow 
of  the  North  for  the  crimes  of  the  North  against  liberty. 
On  the  contrary,  the  meetings  and  the  press  do  well- 
nigh  universally  justify  the  compromise  of  1820,  and, 
in  the  great  majority  of  instances,  the  compromise  of 
1850,  "  Fugitive  Slave  Act,"  and  all.  Even  in  sermons, 
preached  against  the  Nebraska  Bill,  I  have  seen  the 
Fugitive  Slave  Act  justified.  Now,  the  idea,  that  they, 
who  can  approve  of  either  of  these  compromises,  and 
especially  that  they,  who  can,  possibly,  acquiesce  in  the 
chasing  down  of  men,  women,  and  children,  for  the  pur 
pose  of  easting  them  into  the  pit  of  slavery — the  idea,  I 
Bay,  that  such  persons  will  perseveringly  and  effectively 


K'(J  THE   NEBRASKA   BILL. 

resist  slavery,  and  do  faithful  battle  for  its  overthrow, 
is  to  my  mind  simply  absurd.  They,  and  they  only,  are 
to  be  relied  on  for  such  service,  who  so  loathe  slavery, 
that  they  would  rather  perish  than  do  any  of  its  biddings, 
come  those  biddings  from  Congress,  or  from  Courts,  or 
from  any  other  sources. 

Am  I  bid  to  strengthen  my  hope  by  looking  at  the 
rapidly  multiplying  abolitionists  ?  I  do  look  at  them : 
and  this  cheering  sight  is  all,  that,  under  God,  keeps 
my  hope  alive.  But  I  fear,  that  they  are  too  late.  I 
fear,  that  the  disease  is  past  cure.  And  I  fear,  too,  that, 
even  if  we  are  yet  in  time  to  kill  the  demon  of  Slavery, 
our  false  and  pro-slavery  education  makes  us  so  hesitat 
ing  and  timid  in  his  terrific  presence,  that  we  shall  not 
wage  direct,  deep,  and  fatal  war  upon  him,  but  shall 
waste  our  energies  and  our  only  and  swiftly  passing 
away  opportunity  in  ineffectual  skirmishes  and  disgrace 
ful  dodgings.  A  few  abolitionists  are  consistent:  and, 
were  they  not  so  few,  they  would  be  formidable.  They 
know  no  law  for  any  fraud;  and,  therefore,  they  will 
not  know  it  for  the  most  stupendous  fraud.  They  know 
no  law  for  any  oppression ;  and,  therefore,  they  will 
know  none  for  the  most  sweeping  oppression.  Such 
abolitionists  are  Garrison  and  Phillips,  Goodell  and 
Douglass.  But  most  abolitionists,  impliedly  if  not  di 
rectly,  tacitly  if  not  openly,  acknowledge,  that  slavery 
can  have,  and  actually  has,  rights :  and  they  are  as  re 
spectful  to  these  supposed  rights,  as  if  the  subject  of 


THE   NEBRASKA   BILL.  197 

them  were  one  of  the  greatest  earthly  blessings,  instead 
of  one  of  the  greatest  earthly  curses. 

It  is  true,  that  there  is  a  political  party  in  our  coun 
try,  organized  against  slavery;  and  that  it  numbers 
some  two  hundred  thousand  voters,  among  whom  are 
some  of  the  noblest  men  in  the  land.  And,  yet,  I  look 
with  well-nigh  as  much  sorrow,  as  hope,  to  this  party. 
For  so  long  as  it  recognizes  slavery  as  law,  I  fear,  that, 
notwithstanding  its  high  and  holy  purposes,  it  will  do 
scarcely  less  to  sanction  and  uphold  slavery  than  to  re 
proach  and  cast  it  down.  Again,  so  long  as  this  party 
is  swayed  by  such  words  of  folly  and  delusion,  as 
"  SLAVERY  SECTIONAL  :  FREEDOM  NATIONAL,"  its  ad 
missions  in  favor  of  slavery  can  not  fail  to  go  far  to  out 
weigh  all  its  endeavors  against  slavery. 

A  law  for  slavery !  What  confessed  madness  would 
it  be  to  claim  a  law  for  technical  piracy,  or  a  law  for 
murder!  But  what  piracy  is  there  so  sweeping  and 
desolating  as  slavery  ?  And,  as  to  murder — who  would 
not  rather  have  his  dearest  friend  in  the  grave — ay,  in 
the  grave  of  the  murdered — than  under  the  yoke  of 
slavery  ? 

"SLAVERY  SECTIONAL:  FREEDOM  NATIONAL!" 
And,  therefore,  according  to  the  friends  of  this  motto, 
the  nation,  as  such,  must  not  concern  itself  with  the 
great  mass  of  slavery,  because  that  great  mass,  instead 
of  being  spread  over  the  whole  nation,  exists  but  in  sec 
tions  of  it.  Not  less  foolish  would  it  be  to  neglect  the 


IliS  THE   NEBRASKA   BILL. 

smallpox,  because  it  is  only  in  sections  of  the  city  that 
it  prevails.  Indeed,  it  would  not  be  less  mad  to  leave 
the  fire  unextinguished,  because,  as  yet,  it  rages  but  in 
sections  of  the  city.  Slavery,  if  not  extinguished,  is  as 
certain  to  spread,  as  is  the  fire,  if  not  extinguished. 
The  past  attests  this ;  and  the  present  exhibits  very  glar 
ing  proof  of  it.  If  we  would  save  the  city,  we  must  put 
out  the  fire.  If  we  would  save  the  nation,  we  must  put 
out  slavery — ay,  put  it  out  in  all  the  nation.  I  said, 
that  slavery  is,  now,  spreading.  It  may  not  go  literally 
into  Nebraska  and  Kansas,  either  now  or  ever.  Never 
theless,  slavery  will  be  spreading  itself  over  our  country, 
at  least  in  its  influence  and  power,  so  long  as  the  nation 
forbears  to  uproot  it. 

"SLAVERY  SECTIONAL:  FREEDOM  NATIONAL!"  A 
poor  flag  would  "  Murder  sectional :  Anti-Murder  na 
tional  !"  be  to  go  forth  with  against  murder.  But  not 
less  poor  is  the  other  to  go  forth  with  against  slavery. 
Very  little  inspiration  could  be  caught  from  either. 
Kay,  would  not  their  limited  toleration  of  the  crimes 
neutralize  their  influence  against  the  extension  of  the 
crimes?  How  unlike  to  these  poor  words  would  be 
"No  MURDER  ANYWHERE!"  ."No  SLAVERY  ANY 
WHERE!"  Under  such  earnest  and -honest  words,  men 
could  do  battle  with  all  their  hearts.  But  under  the 
other,  they  are  laughed  at  by  the  enemy ;  and  should 
be  laughed  at  by  themselves. 

There  is  a  political  party  at  the  North,  called  the 


THE  NEBRASKA  BILL.  199 

Liberty  Party.     It  aims  to  go  for  every  political  truth ; 
and  to  realize  the  idea  of  an  every  way  righteous  civil 
Government.     It  is  a  little  party.     Its  handful  of  mem 
bers  are  scarcely  more  numerous  than  were  the  primi 
tive  disciples,  who  were  gathered  in  the  upper  room,  at 
Jerusalem.     That  little  party  will  not  disown  what  I 
have  said  on  this  occasion.     Every  other  party  will. 
That  little  party  has,  already,  lived  some  fifteen  years. 
It  will  continue  to  live.     Perhaps,  it  will  not  grow-. 
Perhaps  it  will.     The  "  little  cloud,  like  a  man's  hand," 
may  yet  spread  itself  over  the  whole  heavens.     Of  this 
much,  at  least,  do  I  feel  certain,  that  no  party  of  essen 
tially  lower  or  other  principles  than  those  of  the  Liberty- 
Party  will  suffice  to  bring  down  American  slavery. 
Happy  country  this— happy  North— happy  South— if 
the  present  aggressive  movement  of  the  slave-power 
shall  result  in  bringing  triumphant  accessions  to  the 
Liberty  Party ! 

My  fear,  that  the  American  Governments,  State  01 
National,  will  not  abolish  slavery,  is,  in  no  degree, 
abated  by  the  fact,  that  several  European  Governments 
have,  in  the  present  generation,  abolished  it.  It  must 
be  remembered,  that  those  Governments  were  exterior 
to,  and  independent  of,  the  slave-power  ;  and  that  they 
were  not  trammelled  by  slaveholding  constituencies. 
It  is  true  that  slavery  in  Mexico  was  abolished  by  the 
Government  in  Mexico;  and  that  slavery  in  South- 
American  States  was  abolished  by  the  Governments 


200  THE  ^EBEASKA  BILL. 

in  those  States.  But  it  is  also  true,  that  all  this  was 
done  to  promote  the  success  of  their  Eevolution  and 
their  deliverance  from  the  Government  of  Spain.  I 
doubt  not  that  even  we,  closely  as  we  cling  to  slavery, 
would,  nevertheless,  abolish  it,  if  urged  to  do  so  by  the 
exigencies  of  war. 

To  hope,  that,  because  the  English  Government  abo 
lished  slavery,  our  Governments  will  also,  is  unwise  in 
another  point  of  view.  Comparatively  disentangled 
with  slavery  as  was  England,  slavery,  nevertheless, 
exerted  well-nigh  enough  power  over  her  Government 
to  prevent  its  successful  action  against  slavery:  The 
party  in  the  interest  of  slavery  was  barely  defeated. 

Let  me  not  be  misunderstood.     Let  me  not  be  sup 
posed  to  fear,  that  American  slavery  will  not  come  to 
an  end.     My  fear  is,  that  it  will  not  be  brought  to  an 
end  by  Government.     I  have  no  fear  that  it  will  not  be 
abolished.     It  will  be  abolished — and  at  no  distant  day. 
If  the  Governments  fail  to  abolish  it,  it  will  abolish 
itself.     The  colored  people  of  this  nation,  bond  and  free, 
number  four  millions,  and  are  multiplying  rapidly. 
They  are  all  victims  of  slavery — for  if  the  free  are  not 
in  the  umbra,  they  are,  nevertheless,  in  the  penumbra  of 
slavery.     Hence,  then,  as  well  as  by  identity  of  race, 
they  are  bound  together  by  the  strongest  sympathy. 
Moreover,  if  not  carried  along,  as  rapidly  as  others, 
nevertheless,  they  are  carried  along,  in  the  general  pro 
gressive  knowledge  of  human  rights.     Such  being  the 


THE  NEBRASKA  BILL.  201 

case,  it  is  not  to  be  supposed,  that  they  can  be  held  in 
their  present  condition,  for  ages  longer.  They  will  de 
liver  themselves,  if  they  are  not  delivered.  He  must 
be  blind  to  history,  to  philosophy,  to  the  nature  of  man, 
who  can  suppose,  that  such  a  system,  as  American  slav 
ery,  can  have  a  long  life,  even  in  circumstances  most 
favorable  to  its  continuance.  In  the  most  benighted 
portions  of  the  earth,  the  victims  of  such  a  system 
would,  in  process  of  time,  come  to  such  a  sense  of  their 
wrongs,  and  their  power  also,  as  to  rise  up  and  throw 
off  the  system.  But  that,  here,  such  a  system  must  be 
hurried  to  its  end,  is  certain.  For,  here,  it  is  entirely 
out  of  harmony  with  all  the  institutions  around  it,  and 
with  all  the  professions  of  those  who  uphold  it.  Here  it 
is  continually  pressed  upon  by  ten  thousand  influences 
adverse  to  its  existence.  Nothing,  so  much  as  American 
slavery,  stands  in  the  way  of  the  progress  of  the  age. 
A  little  time  longer,  and  it  must  yield  to  this  progress, 
and  be  numbered  with  the  things  that  were.  The  only 
question  is,  whether  it  shall  die  a  peaceful  or  a  violent 
death — whether  it  shall  quietly  recede  before  advancing 
truth,  or  resist  unto  blood. 

G-od  forbid,  that  American  slavery  should  come  to  a 
violent  end.  I  hold,  with  O'Connell,  that  no  revolution 
is  worth  the  shedding  of  blood.  A  violent  end  to 
American  slavery  would  constitute  one  of  the  bloodiest 
chapters  in  all  the  book  of  time.  It  would  be  such  a 
reckoning  for  deep  and  damning  wrongs — such  an  out- 


202  THE  NEBRASKA  BILL. 

bursting  of  smothered  and  pent-up  revenge,  as  living 
man  lias  never  seen.     Can  tins' catastrophe  be  averted? 
Perhaps  it  cannot.     Perhaps  God  will  not  let  off  this 
superlatively  wicked  nation  on  any  easier  terms  than 
a  servile  'war — a  war,  we  must  remember,  that  will  be 
very  like  to  bring  within  its  wide  sweep  the  whole 
black  population  of  this  continent  and  the  neighbor 
ing  islands — a  population  already  numbering  some  ten 
or  twelve  millions.     Perhaps,   since  we  would  be  a 
nation  of  oppressors,  He  will  let  the  oppressed  smite 
the  oppressors.     Perhaps,  since  we  would  be  a  bloody 
nation,  He  will  give  us  "blood,  even  unto  the  horse- 
bridles."     There  will  be  no  such  catastrophe,  however, 
if  the  North  and  South,  equal  sinners  in  the  matter 
of  slavery,  shall  hasten  to  mingle  the  tears  of  their 
penitence;    to  say  from  the  heart:     "We  are  verily 
guilty    concerning   our   brother ;"   and   to  join   their 
hands  in  putting  away  their  joint  and  unsurpassed  sin. 
I  shall  be  blamed  for  having  treated  my  subject  in 
the  light  of  so  severe  a  morality.     It  will  be  said,  that 
economical  views  of  it  would  have  been  more  suitable 
and  statesmanlike ;  and  that  I  should  have  dwelt  upon 
the  gains  to  the  slaveholder,  and  the  gains  to  the  country, 
from  the  abolition  of  slavery.  I  confess,  that,  had  horses 
and  oxen  been  the  subject  of  my  speech,  the  field  of 
economy  would  have  been  wide  enough  for  the  range 
of  my  thoughts,  and  the  course  of  my  argument.     But 
I  have  been  speaking  of  men — of  millions  of  immortals : 


THE  NEBRASKA  BILL.  203 

and  I  have  been  claiming,  that  Government  should  lift 
them  up  out  of  their  chattelhood  and  their  association 
with  brutes ;  and  I  could  not  so  disparage  the  dignity, 
and  so  sully  the  glory,  of  their  manhood,  as  to  claim  the 
performance  of  this  high  and  holy  duty,  in  the  name  of 
money.  When  I  see  my  fellow-man  reduced,  to  a  slave, 
I  demand  his  deliverance,  simply  because  he  is  a  man. 
I  cannot  so  wrong  his  exalted  nature  and  my  own,  and 
the  Great  One,  who  made  us  in  His  own  image,  as  to 
argue,  that  money  can  be  made  by  such  deliverance. 
I  would  as  soon  think  of  making  a  calculation  of 
pecuniary  gains  rny  argument  in  dissuading  from 
the  crime  of  murder. 

In  saying,  that  I  would  not  suffer  the  duty  of  deliv 
ering  the  slave  to  turn  upon  the  question  of  pecuniary 
gains  and  economical  advantages,  I  utter  no  peculiar 
doctrine.  Who  would  suffer  it  thus  to  turn,  in  any 
case,  where  he  regards  such  victims  as  men  ?  But  with 
me,  all  men  are  men.  Are  the  skin  and  the  mind  of 
my  fellow  men  dark  ?  "A  man's  a  man  for  a'  that  I" 
I  still  recognize  him  as  a  man.  He  is  my  brother:  and 
I  still  have  a  brothers  heart  for  him.  Suppose  the 
Government  of  Pennsylvania  had,  the  last  week, 
reduced  all  the  white  people  of  Pennsylvania,  who 
have  light  hair,  to  slavery/  Would  Congress  let  the 
present  week  expire,  without  seeking  their  release? 
No!  Would  Congress  stoop  to  ply  that  Government 
with  arguments  drawn  from  political  economy,  and  to 


204  THE   NEBEASKA   BILL. 

coax  it  with  prospects  of  gain  ?  ISTo !  no ! — a  thousand 
times  no  !  It  would  demand  their  release :  and  it  would 
demand  it,  too,  not  in  virtue  of  feeble  arguments,  and 
humble  authority ; — but,  Ethan  Allen-like,  in  the  name 
of  God  Almighty  and  the  Congress. 

I  shall  be  blamed  for  not  having  brought  out  a  plan 
for  getting  rid  of  slavery.  I  confess,  that  I  have  no 
other  plan  for  getting  rid  of  it  but  its  abolition — its  un 
conditional,  entire,  and  immediate  abolition.  The  slave 
is  robbed  of  his  manhood,  of  himself,  and,  consequently, 
of  all  his  rights.  There  is  no  justice  then — there  is  no 
Gk>d  then — if  the  restoration  of  his  rights  and  his  resto 
ration  to  himself  can  be  innocently  conditioned  on  any 
thing,  or  innocently  postponed. 

I  shall  be,  especially,  blamed  for  not  having  pro 
posed  compensation.  I  do  not  repudiate — I  never  have 
repudiated — the  doctrine  of  compensation.  Compensa 
tion  for  his  services  and  sufferings  would  be  due  from 
the  slaveholder  to  the  slave ;  but,  clearly,  no  compensa 
tion  for  his  restored  liberty  would  be  due  from  the 
slave  to  the  slaveholder.  I  admit,  however,  that  a  great 
debt  would  be  due,  from  the  American  people,  both  to 
the  slaveholder  and  the  slave.  The  American  people 
are  responsible  for  American  slavery.  It  is  the  Ameri 
can  people,  who,  in  the  face  of  the  Declaration  of  Inde 
pendence,  and  the  Constitution,  as  well  as  of  religion 
and  reason,  God  and  humanity,  have  made  themselves 
the  responsible  enslavers  of  millions.  Departed  genera- 


THE  NEBRASKA   BILL.  205 

tions  of  slaves  Lave  gone  to  the  bar  of  Heaven  with 
this  accusation  upon  their  lips;  and  nothing  short  of 
the  repentance  of  the  American  people  can  prevent  its 
being  carried  there  by  the  present  generation  of  Ameri 
can  slaves.  There  is,  then,  a  great  debt  due  from  the 
American  people  to  the  American  slaves.  But  they 
owe  one  to  the  slaveholders  also.  Men  become  slave 
holders,  and  continue  slaveholders,  and  extend  their 
investments  in  human  flesh,  on  the  faith  of  the  pro 
fessions,  legislation,  and  policy  of  the  American  people, 
and  I  may  add,  on  the  faith  of  the  Constitution  and 
religion  of  the  American  people,  as  that  people  do 
themselves  interpret  their  Constitution  and  religion. 
Again,  non-slaveholders,  as  well  as  slaveholders,  feed 
and  clothe  themselves  upon  the  cheap — (cheap  because 
extorted  and  unpaid  for) — products  of  slave  labor. 
They  enrich  their  commerce  with  these  products  ;  and, 
in  a  word,  they  unite  in  making  slavery  the  cherished 
and  overshadowing  interest  of  the  nation.  Now,  for  the 
American  people,  in  these  circumstances,  to  abolish 
slavery,  and  refuse  to  pay  damages  to  the  slaveholders, 
would  be  a  surprise  upon  the  slaveholders  full  of  bad 
faith.  For  the  American  people  to  share  with  the 
slaveholders  in  the  policy  and  profits  of  slaveholding, 
and  then  terminate  it,  and  devolve  the  whole  loss  of  its 
termination  on  the  slaveholders,  would  be  well-nigh 
unparalleled  injustice  and  meanness.  If  I  have  en 
couraged  and  drawn  men  into  wickedness,  I  am,  it  is 


THE  NEBRASKA  BILL 


true,  not  to  stand  by  them  in  their  wickedness  —  for  of 
that  both  they  and  I  are  to  repent  :  —  but  I  am  to  stand 
by  them  in  their  loss,  and  to  share  it  with  them.  The 
English  people  gave  to  the  masters  of  eight  hundred 
thousand  slaves  a  hundred  millions  of  dollars.  I  would, 
that  the  American  people,  after  they  shall  have  abolish 
ed  American  slavery,  might  give  to  the  masters  of  four 
times  that  number  of  slaves  four  times  the  hundred  mil 
lions  of  dollars  ;  and  far  more,  would  I,  that  they  should 
provide  liberally  for  the  humbler  and  cheaper,  but  infi 
nitely  more  sacred,  needs  of  the  emancipated.  "Then" 
my  now  dark  and  guilty  country!  "shall  thy  light 
break  forth  as  the  morning,  and  thine  health  spring  forth 
speedily  ;  and  thy  righteousness  shall  go  before  thee  : 
the  glory  of  the  Lord  shall  be  thy  rereward." 

I  am  well  aware,  that,  in  reply  to  my  admission, 
that  the  American  people  should  thus  burden  them 
selves,  it  will  be  said,  that  slavery  is  a  State,  and  not  a 
National  concern;  and  that  it  is  for  the  State  Govern 
ments,  and  not  for  the  National  Government,  to  dis 
pose  of  it.  I,  certainly,  do  not  deny,  that,  if  slavery  con 
be  legalized  in  our  country,  it  must  be  under  the  State 
Governments  only.  Nevertheless,  I  hold,  that  every 
part  of  American  slavery  is  the  concern  of  every  part 
of  the  American  people,  because  the  whole  American 
people  and  the  American  Government  have,  though  in 
defiance  of  the  Constitution,  made  it  such.  And  as 
they  have  made  it  such,  the  denationalizing  of  slavery, 


THE  NEBRASKA  BILL.  207 

(as  the  plirase  is  with  the  Independent  or  Free  Demo 
crats,)  is  not  the  whole  duty  to  which  we  are  called. 
We  will  not  have  done  our  whole  duty,  when  we  shall 
have  abolished  all  the  slavery,  which  exists  within  the 
exclusive  jurisdiction  of  Congress.  For  slavery,  under 
the  State  Governments  also,  has  been  fostered  and 
established  by  the  whole  American  people  and  the 
American  Government : — and  I  add,  by  the  way,  that, 
had  it  not  been  so  fostered  and  established,  there 
would,  at  this  day,  have  been  no  slavery  in  the  land. 

If  John  Smith  has  built  a  distillery  ;  and  if  he  has, 
also,  encouraged  his  neighbors  to  build  half  a  dozen 
more ;  and,  especially,  if  he  has  patronized  and  profited 
by  the  half  dozen  distilleries  ;  then,  his  work  of  repent 
ance  is  not  all  done,  when  he  has  broken  up  his  distil 
lery  : — and,  none  the  more  is  it  all  done,  because  it  was 
contrary  to  law,  that  he  had  a  part  in  getting  up  and 
sustaining  the  half  dozen  distilleries.  The  de-Smithing 
of  all  this  distillation,  and  of  all  the  drunkenness,  that 
has  resulted  from  it,  obviously  fails  to  cover  the  whole 
ground  of  his  duty,  unless,  indeed,  as  is  proper,  the  de- 
Smithing  is  interpreted  to  mean  the  breaking  up  of  all 
these  distilleries  and  their  resulting  drunkenness.  So, 
too,  the  denationalizing  of  slavery,  unless  it  be  thus 
broadly  and  j  ustly  interpreted,  falls  short  of  the  mea 
sure  of  the  duty  of  the  nation.  The  nation,  whether 
constitutionally  or  unconstitutionally,  has  built  up  slav- 


208  THE  NEBRASKA  BILL. 

ery :  and,  therefore,  the  nation  should  end  it,  and  pay 
to  end  it. 

I  said,  that  I  shall  be  blamed  for  speaking  unwisely 
on  the  subject  of  slavery.  I  add,  that  I  shall  be  blamed 
for  speaking  on  it,  at  all.  To  speak  against  slavery 
in  any  manner,  and,  especially,  in  the  national  councils, 
is  construed  into  hostility  to  the  Union : — and  hostility 
to  the  Union  is,  in  the  eye  of  American  patriotism,  the 
most  odious  of  all  offences— the  most  heinous  of  all 
crimes. 

I  prize  the  Union,  because  I  prize  the  wisdom,  cou 
rage,  philanthropy,  and  piety,  of  which  it  was  begotten. 
I  prize  it,  because  I  prize  the  signal  sufferings  and 
sacrifices,  which  it  cost  our  fathers.  I  prize  it,  because 
I  prize  its  objects — those  great  and  glorious  objects, 
that  prompted  to  the  Declaration  of  Independence ;  that 
were  cherished  through  a  seven  years'  war ;  and  that 
were  then  recited  in  the  preamble  of  the  Constitution, 
as  the  objects  of  the  Constitution.  I  prize  it,  for  the 
great  power  it  has  to  honor  God  and  bless  man.  I 
prize  it,  because  I  believe  the  day  will  come,  when  this 
power  shall  be  exerted  to  this  end. 

Now,  surely,  opposition  to  slavery  cannot  be  hostility 
to  such  a  Union.  Such  a  Union  is  not  assailed,  and 
cannot  be  endangered,  by  opposition,  however  strenu 
ous,  to  slavery,  or  to  any  other  form  of  oppression,  or 
to  any  other  system  of  iniquity.  To  attack  what  is 


THE  NEBRASKA  BILL,  209 

good,  is  to  be  hostile  to  such  a  Union.     To  attack  what 
is  evil,  is  to  befriend  it. 

Nevertheless,  the  position  is  persisted  in,  that  to 
attack  slavery  is  to  attack  the  Union.  How  are  we  to 
account  for  this  persistence  in  this  absurd  position  ?  It 
is  easily  accounted  for.  The  position  is  not  absurd. 
There  are  two  Unions.  There  is  the  Union  of  early 
times — that,  which  our  fathers  formed,  and  the  most 
authentic  record  of  the  formation  of  which,  and  of  the 
spirit  and  objects  of  which,  is  to  be  found  in  the  Decla 
ration  of  Independence  and  the  Federal  Constitution. 
.  This  is  the  Union  openly  based  on  the  doctrine  of  the 
equal  rights  of  all  men.  This  is  the  Union,  the  avowed 
purpose  of  which  is  "to  establish  justice  and  secure 
the  blessings  of  liberty."  Then,  there  is  the  other 
Union — the  Union  of  later  times — of  our  times — manu 
factured,  on  the  one  hand,  by  Southern  slaveholders, 
and,  on  the  other,  by  Northern  merchants  and  North 
ern  politicians.  The  professed  aims  of  this  new  Union 
are,  of  course,  patriotic  and  beautiful.  Its  real,  and 
but  thinly  disguised,  aims  are  extended  and  perpetual 
slavery  on  the  one  hand,  and  political  and  commercial 
gains  on  the  other.  The  bad  character  of  this  new 
Union  is  not  more  apparent  in  its  aims,  than  in  its  fruits, 
which  prove  these  aims.  Among  these  fruits  are  Union 
Safety  Committee  Kesolutions  ;  Baltimore  platforms ; 
pro-slavery  pledges  of  members  of  Congress ;  Kesolu 
tions  of  servile  Legislatures  ;  contemptible  Inaugurals, 


210  THE   NEBRASKA  BILL, 

in  which,  now  a  Governor,  and  now  a  President,  go  all 
lengths  for  slavery  ;  and,  above  all,  or  rather  below  all, 
Union-saving  and  slave-catching  sermons  of  devil-de 
luded,  and  devil-driven  Doctors  of  Divinity.  To  this 
list  is,  now,  to  be  added  the  stupendous  breach  of  faith 
proposed  in  the  bill  before  us.  This  Bill,  which  lays 
open  all  our  unorganized  territory  to  slavery,  is  a  legi 
timate  fruit  of  the  new  Union.  The  consecration  of  all 
the  national  territory  to  freedom,  sixty-five  years  ago, 
was  the  legitimate  fruit  of  the  old  Union.  Which 
is  the  better  Union  ?  By  their  fruits  ye  shall  know 
them. 

Now,  the  matter  is  not  explained  by  saying,  that  this 
new  Union  is  but  a  misinterpretation  of  the  old.  Mis 
interpretation  cannot  go  so  far,  as  to  change  the  whole 
nature  of  its  subject.  Oh  no,  it  is  not  a  misinterpreta 
tion.  But  it  is  distinctly  and  entirely  another  Union, 
with  which  its  manufacturers  are  endeavoring  to  sup 
plant  the  Union  given  to  us  by  our  fathers  : — and  this 
supplanting  Union  is  as  unlike  the  precious  gift,  as 
darkness  is  unlike  light,  as  falsehood  is  unlike  truth. 

When,  then,  we,  who  are  laboring  for  the  overthrow 
of  slavery,  and  for  the  practical  acknowledgment  of  the 
equal  rights  of  all  men,  are  charged  with  hostility  to 
the  Union,  it  is,  indeed,  pretended  by  those,  who  make 
the  charge,  and  for  the  sake  of  effect,  that  we  are  hostile 
to  the  original  and  true  Union.  Our  hostility,  never 
theless,  is  but  to  the  conjured-up  and  spurious  Union. 


THE  NEBKASKA  BILL.  211 

Our  only  offence  is,  that  we  withstand  the  base  appeals 
and  seductive  influences  of  the  day.  The  only  cause, 
for  the  abundant  reproach,  which  has  befallen  us,  is, 
that,  in  our  honesty  and  patriotism,  we  still  stand  by 
that  good  old  Union,  which  is  a  Union  for  justice  and 
liberty ;  and  that  we  bravely  oppose  ourselves  to  those 
artful  and  wicked  men,  who  would  substitute  for  it  a 
Union  for  slavery,  and  place,  and  gain ;  and  who  are 
even  impudent  enough  to  claim,  that  this  trumped-up 
Union  is  identical  with  that  good  old  Union.  Yes, 
wicked,  artful,  impudent,  indeed,  must  they  be,  who 
can  claim,  that  this  dirty  work  of  their  own  dirty  hands 
is  that  veritable  work  of  our  fathers,  which  is  the  glory 
of  our  fathers. 

I  have  clone.  Methinks,  were  I  a  wise  and  good  man, 
and  could  have  the  whole  American  people  for  my 
audience,  I  should  like  to  speak  to  them,  in  the  fitting 
phrase,  which  such  a  man  commands,  the  words  of 
truth  and  soberness,  remonstrance  and  righteousness. 
And,  yet,  why  should  I  ? — for,  in  all  probability,  such 
words  would  be  of  little  present  avail.  The  American 
people  are,  as  yet,  in  no  state  "to  hear  with  their  ears, 
and  understand  .with  their  heart  " — for  "their  heart  is 
waxed  gross,  and  their  ears  are  dull  of  hearing."  Yet, 
awhile,  and  he,  who  should  speak  to  them  such  words, 
would,  like  Lot,  "  seem  as  one  that  mocked."  This  is 
a  nation  of  oppressors — from  the  North  to  the  South — 
from  the  East  to  the  West— and,  what  is  more,  of  strong 


212  THE  NEBRASKA  BILL, 

and  successful  oppressors ;  —  and,  hence,  there  is  but 
little  room  to  hope  that  she  will  listen  and  repent.  This 
nation  holds,  in  the  iron  and  crushing  grasp  of  slavery, 
between  three  and  four  millions,  whose  poor  hearts 
writhe  and  agonize  no  less  than  would  ours,  were  their 
fate  our  fate.  And,  yet,  she  is  not  content  even  with 
these  wide  desolations  of  human  rights  and  human  hap 
piness.  On  the  contrary,  she  is  continually  seeking  to 
extend  the  horrid  realm  of  slavery.  It  is  not  enough, 
that  she  purchased  Louisiana,  and  gave  up,  by  far,  the 
most  valuable  part  of  it  to  slavery  ;  nor,  that  she  pur 
chased  Florida,  and  gave  up  all  of  it  to  slavery:  nor  is 
it  enough,  that  there  is  so  much  reason  to  fear,  that  the 
mighty  and  sleepless  efforts  to  overspread  with  slavery 
the  whole  tertitory,  of  which  she  plundered  Mexico, 
will  prove  extensively,  if  not,  indeed,  entirely  successful. 
Nor,  is  it  enough,  that  there  is  imminent  danger,  that 
Nebraska  and  Kansas  will  be  wrested  from  freedom, 
and  added  to  the  domain  of  slavery  and  sorrow.  All 
this  is  not  enough  to  satisfy  the  desire  of  this  nation  to 
extend  the  reign  of  slavery.  Her  gloating  and  covet 
ous  eyes  are  constantly  upon  the  remainder  of  Mexico ; 
upon  Cuba;  St.  Domingo;  and  other  " islands  of  the 
sea."  All  these  she  is  impatient  to  scourge  with  that 
most  terrible  of  all  forms  of  oppression  —  American 
slavery. 

Said  I  not  truly,  then,  that  there  is  but  little  ground 
to  hope  for  the  repentance  of  this  nation  ?      Must  she 


THE  NEBKASKA  BILL.  213 

not  be  well-nigh  dead  to  every  conceivable  attempt  to 
bring  her  to  repentance?  But  she  will  not  be  so 
always.  The  voices  of  truthful,  tender,  faithful  admoni 
tion,  now  unheard  or  despised  by  her,  will  yet  reach 
her  heart.  She  may,  it  is  true,  (Heaven  spare  her  from 
the  need  of  such  discipline !)  have,  first,  to  pass  through 
foreign  wars,  and  servile  wars,  and  still  other  horrors. 
But  the  day  of  her  redemption — or,  in  other  words,  of 
her  broken-hearted  sorrow  for  her  crimes — (for  such 
sorrow  is  redemption,  whether  in  the  case  of  an  indivi 
dual  or  a  nation) — will,  sooner  or  later,  come.  And 
when  that  day  shall  come,  the  moral  soil  of  America, 
watered  with  the  tears  of  penitence,  shall  bring  forth 
fruits  for  the  glory  of  God  and  the  welfare  of  man, 
rivalling  in  abundance,  and  infinitely  surpassing  in  pre- 
ciousness,  the  rich  harvests  of  her  literal  soil.  In  that 
day,  our  nation  shall  be  worthy  of  all,  that  God  and 
good  men  have  done  for  her.  Her  material  wealth, 
surpassing  that  of  any  other  nation,  shall  be  no  greater 
than  her  moral  wealth :  and  her  gigantic  and  unmatch 
ed  power  shall  be  only  a  power  to  bless. 

What  I  have  just  said,  is,  indeed,  but  prophecy — and 
the  prophecy,  too,  of  an  ignorant  and  short-sighted 
man : — and  it  may,'  therefore,  never  be  fulfilled.  My 
anticipations  of  a  beautiful  and  blessed  renovation  for 
my  beloved  country  may  never  be  realized.  She  may 
be  left  to  perish,  and  to  perish  for  ever.  "What  then  ? 
Must  I  cease  my  efforts  for  her  salvation  ?  Happily,  I 


214  THE  NEBRASKA  BILL. 

am  not  dependent  on  prophecy  for  the  interpretation  of 
my  duty,  nor  to  sustain  my  fidelity,  nor  to  encourage 
the  opening  of  my  lips.  I  am  cast  upon  no  such  un 
certainty.  I  am  to  continue  to  plead  for  my  country ; 
and  to  feel  assured,  that  I  do  not  plead  in  vain.  If 
prophecy  is  all  uncertain — nevertheless,  there  are  cer 
tainties,  gracious  certainties,  on  which  it  is  my  privilege 
to  rely.  I  know  that  in  the  Divine  Economy,  no  honest 
discharge  of  the  conscience,  and  no  faithful  testimony 
of  the  heart,  shall  be  suffered  to  go  unrewarded.  I 
know,  that,  in  this  perfect  and  blessed  Economy,  no  sin 
cere  words  in  behalf  of  the  right  are  lost.  Time  and 
truth  will  save  them  from  falling  ineffectual.  To  time 
and  truth,  therefore,  do  I  cordially  commit  all,  that  I 
have  said  on  this  occasion ;  and  patiently  will  I  wait 
to  see  what  uses  time  and  truth  shall  make  of  it. 


[Notwithstanding  the  foregoing  speech  and  his  re 
corded  votes  against  the  Nebraska  bill,  in  all  its 
stages,  it  is  still  extensively  believed  that  Mr.  Smith 
was  not  earnestly  opposed  to  it,  and  that  he  did 
not  even  vote  against  it.  It  was  obvious  that  de 
linquency,  at  this  point,  could  not  fail  to  stamp  so 
radical  an  abolitionist  as  Mr.  Smith  had  passed  for, 
with  very  gross  and  very  guilty  inconsistency.  Hence 
tho  temptation  to  charge  such  delinquency  on  him 


THE   NEBRASKA  BILL.  215 

was  felt  to  be  very  strong,  by  those  who  desired, 
at  whatever  expense  to  truth  and  justice,  to  increase 
the  public  distrust  and  dislike  of  that  class  of  aboli 
tionists  to  which  Mr.  Smith  belongs.  The  tempt 
ation  was  yielded  to ;  the  point  was  gained ;  and  the 
superiority  of  Whig  anti-slavery  to  technical  anti-slav 
ery  was  established.  On  the  great  test  question  of  anti- 
slavery  integrity,  which  the  Whigs  so  strenuously, 
and  yet  so  ludicrously,  claimed  the  Nebraska  Bill  to 
be,  they  had  proved  themselves  sound  and  reliable; 
whilst  the  technical  and  ultra  abolitionists  had,  so  far 
as  they  could  be  judged  of  in  the  light  of  Gerrit  Smith's 
treachery,  proved  their  kind  of  anti-slavery  to  be  but 
pretending  and  spurious ! 

It  is  proper  to  add,  that,  as  the  final  vote  on  the  Ne 
braska  Bill  was  not  completed  until  after  eleven  o'clock 
at  night,  Mr.  Smith's  habit  of  retiring  and  rising  very 
early,  helped  to  give  currency  to  the  charge,  that  he 
had  no  part  in  it.  .  Had  it  been  a  vote  on  a  subject  of 
but  ordinary  importance,  he  would  have  had  no  part 
in  it.  In  the  present  instance  he  felt  himself  authorized 
and  bound  to  depart  from  his  good  habit.] 


SPEECH 


ON  THE 


MEADE     CLAIMS. 

APRIL      21,      1854. 

THE  bill  for  settling  the  claims  of  the  legal  repre 
sentatives  of  Kichard  W.  Meade  being  under  discussion, 
Mr.  Smith  said : 

I  have  risen,  Mr.  Chairman,  to  reply  briefly  to  what 
the  gentleman,  who  has  just  taken  his  seat,  [Mr.  Jones, 
of  Tennessee,]  said  on  one  of  the  points,  which  he 
raised.  This  I  can  do  most  effectually  by  turning 
against  himself  his  most  material  witness — the  witness, 
among  all  he  has  summoned  to  his  aid,  on  whom  he 
most  relies.  This  witness  is  John  Quincy  Adams. 

By  our  treaty  with  Spain,  we  exonerated  her  from 
the  payment  of  the  claims  of  our  citizens  upon  her,  and 
assumed  to  pay  them  ourselves,  so  far  as  they  were 
valid,  and  so  far  as  $5,000,000  would  be  sufficient  to 
pay  them,  The  honorable  gentleman  denies  that  the 
10 


218  THE  MEADE   CLAIMS. 

claim  of  Kichard  "W.  Meade  has  a  place  among  these 
claims.  I  maintain  that  it  has.  This  is  the  issue  be 
tween  us.  To  sustain  himself  he  has  quoted  largely 
from  Mr.  Adams.  But  the  gentleman  has,  surely,  in 
this  instance,  allowed  clouds  to  come  into  his  very  clear 
brain,  and  hence  he  has  seen  one  thing  for  another. 
What  has  he  proved  by  Mr.  Adams?  Why,  that  we 
are  not  held  by  the  Spanish  liquidation  of  this  claim — 
a  liquidation  subsequent  to  the  signing  of  the  treaty. 
I  admit  that  we  are  not  held  by  it.  But  I  insist  that 
we  are  bound  to  recognize  the  claim  in  spite  of  that 
liquidation.  So  insisted  Mr.  Adams,  as  I  shall  prove 
by  his  words,  quoted  from  the  same  letter  from  which 
the  honorable  gentleman  quoted : 

"  It  was  intended  by  the  Government  of  the  United  States,  that 
Mr.  Meade's  claims,  as  then  exhibited  to  them,  unsettled,  disputed 
claims,  a  mixed  character,  for  contracts,  for  losses  upon  exchange, 
for  depreciation  of  Spanish  Government  paper,  for  interest,  and  for 
damages,  all,  except  the  first,  of  most  uncertain  amount  and  valid 
ity,  should,  in  common  with  the  other  claims  provided  for,  have  the 
benefit  of  the  treaty.  But  no  stipulation  of  special  favor  to  the 
claims  of  Mr.  Meade,  at  the  expense  of  other  claimants,  was,  or 
would  be  intended  by  the  Government  of  the  United  States.  The 
claim  presented  by  Mr.  Meade  to  the  Commissioners  is  for  an 
acknowledged  debt  from  the  Spanish  Government  to  him,  dated 
May,  1820,  and  directed  to  be  paid  out  of  the  funds  of  the  Royal 
Finance  Department,  with  interest.  To  say  that  this  i&  not  the 
claim  which,  in  February,  1819,  the  United,  States  had  renounced 
and  agreed  to  compound,  would  be  to  say  that  daylight  is  not  dark 
ness." 


THE   MEADE   CLAIMS.  219 

Now,  whether  the  claim  in  question  comes  within 
the  scope  of  the  treaty,  I  am  willing  to  leave  to  the 
decision  of  Mr.  Adams — to  the  decision  of  the  gentle 
man's  own  witness.  I  am  glad  that  it  was  the  honor 
able  gentleman  himself  who  called  Mr.  Adams  to  the 
stand;  for  he  has  thereby  rendered  himself  incompe 
tent  to  impeach  him. 

I  might  pause  here.  But  I  will  add  a  few  special 
reasons  why  the  soundness  of  Mr.  Adams's  conclusion 
in  this  case  is  to  be  relied  on.  It  is  to  be  relied  on, 
not  only  because  Mr.  Adams,  in  addition  to  being  an 
honest  man,  was  a  preeminently  able  one ;  nor  because, 
also,  that  he  gave  to  this  subject,  as  the  paper  from 
which  we  have  quoted  shows,  the  most  patient  and 
laborious  investigation;  but  because,  also,  that  Mr. 
Adams  disliked  Mr.  Meade;  nay,  well-nigh  abhorred 
him.  Mr.  A.  was  a  man  of  very  strong  feelings.  He 
did  not  like  and  dislike  so  much  as  he  loved  and  hated. 
He  scouted  the  pretensions  of  Meade  to  a  peculiar 
sacredness  for  his  claim ;  and  seemed  well-nigh  to  hate 
Meade  for  those  pretensions.  He  was  willing  to  admit- 
that  the  treaty  provided  for  this  claim;  nay,  he  insist 
ed,  as  we  have  seen,  in  the  strongest  terms,  that  the 
treaty  did  provide  for  it.  But,  so  far  from  admitting 
that  it  was  a  stronger  claim  than  all  others,  he  argued 
to  show  that  it  was  weaker  than  some  others.  Now, 
I  hold,  that  because  of  Mr.  Adams's  strong  disappro 
bation  of  the  course  of  Mr.  Meade,  all  the  greater  value 


220  THE  MEADE   CLAIMS. 

is  to  be  ascribed  to  what  he  felt  constrained  to  say  in 
favor  of  Mr.  Meade's  claim — in  favor  of  our  Govern 
ment's  recognizing  it  among  the  claims  from  which  it 
released  Spain,  and  which  it  took  upon  itself. 

We  are  not  then  at  liberty  to  reject  this  claim, 
because  Mr.  Meade  was  so  foolish  as  to  arrogate  pecu 
liar  favor  for  it.  He  did  not  forfeit  his  claim  by  reason 
of  this  folly.  If  I  claim  that  my  neighbor  shall  give 
to  my  debt  a  preference  over  a  dozen  other  equally 
just  debts,  I  am  not  to  lose  my  debt  because  of  my 
arrogance.  The  debt  is  none  the  less  obligatory  for 
my  folly  and  impudence. 

ISTor  are  we  at  liberty  to  reject  this  claim  because 
Spain  liquidated  it  after  the  signing  of  the  treaty. 
My  neighbors  may,  very  impertinently,  undertake  to 
liquidate  or  determine  the  true  amount  of  the  debts 
I  owe,  but  such  impertinence  does  not  cancel  my  obli 
gation  to  pay  them. 

I  have  not  time  to  see  all,  or  even  much,  of  what 
the  commissioners  said  upon  this  claim.  My  eye  falls 
upon  the  closing  words  of  one  of  them,  Judge  White  ; 
and  I  will  read  them : 

"  Believing,  as  I  do,  from  the  other  testimony,  that  Mr.  Meade 
has  a  well-founded  claim,  or  at  least  a  claim,  which  the  Spanish 
Government  considered  well-founded,  I  am  perfectly  willing  to 
require  any  document  from  that  Government  which  there  is  reason 
to  think  they  possess,  which  will  elucidate  those  transactions ;  and 
for  that  purpose  am  willing  to  continue  the  cause.  If  we  can  pro- 


THE   MEADE   CLAIMS.  2*2 1 

cure  more  evidence,  it  is  well ;  we  shall  have  greater  certainty  in 
our  ultimate  decision.     If  we  cannot  procure  more,  we  must  come  , 
to  the  best  conclusion  in  our  power,  from  the  proofs,  as  they  now 
exist,  as  to  the  validity  of  the  claims  and  the  extent  of  allow 
ance." 

Now,  surely,  these  words  do  not  fayor  the  idea  that 
the  Meade  claim  did  not  fall  among  the  claims  which 
the  commissioners  were  to  investigate.  These  words 
show,  on  the  contrary,  that  what  the  commissioners 
required  was  the  establishing  of  the  claim — the  prov 
ing  of  the  debt. 

But,  it  is  said  that  Mr.  Meade  failed  to  prove  his 
claim.  I  admit  that  he  did.  I  admit  that  the  commis 
sioners  were  right  in  exacting  the  kind  of  proof  which 
they  did  exact.  But  was  it  the  fault  of  Mr.  Meade 
that  he  did  not  produce  it?  Far  from  it.  The  proof 
exacted  was  in  'the  hands,  and  among  the  archives, 
of  the  Spanish  Government ;  and  that  Government, 
because  of  its  foolish  pride,  refused  to  give  up  the 
proof.  The  Eoyal  certificate  of  the  amount  of  the 
debt  due  to  Mr.  Meade  was,  as  that  Government 
haughtily  held,  all  we  needed  and  all  we  were  enti 
tled  to. 

In  these  circumstances,  what  could  Mr.  Meade  do 
more?  I  answer,  that  he  had  nothing  more  to  do. 
The  matter  then  lay  between  the  two  Governments. 
Our  Government  had  discharged  the  Spanish  Govern 
ment  from  all  obligation  to  pay  the  claims  of  our 


222  THE   MEADE   CLAIMS. 

citizens,  and  that  Government  had,  in  turn,  bound 
itself  to  put  our  Government  in  possession,  so  far  as 
it  could,  of  all  vouchers  and  papers  which  could  serve 
to  establish  the  character  of  those  claims.  Our  Gov 
ernment  was  bound  to  enforce  this  provision  of  the 
treaty  against  Spain. 

Shall  our  Government  pay  the  whole  amount  of  this 
claim  ?  Perhaps  it  should  not  do  so.  I  have  no  doubt, 
however,  that  in  the  liquidation  of  the  claim  by  the 
Spanish  Government,  the  amount  was  made  small 
enough.  Unprecedented  pains  were  taken  to  bring 
the  amount  within  the  limits  of  strict  justice.  More 
over,  it  was  then  expected  that  the  Spanish  Govern 
ment,  not  ours,  would  have  to  pay  it.  Hence,  that 
Government  is  not  to  be  supposed  to  have  been  as  easy 
in  making  up  the  amount,  as  it  might  have  been,  were 
it  making  it  up  for  another  Government  to  pay.  And, 
again,  Spain  at  that  time  felt  herself  to  be  poor.  This 
was  another  reason  why  she  was  concerned  to  reduce 
the  amount  as  low  as  justice  could  possibly  allow.  The 
scholarly  gentleman  of  Pennsylvania,  [Mr.  Chandler,] 
spoke  of  the  "res  angustcz  domi"  the  straitened  home 
circumstances  of  the  Meade  family.  His  classical  words 
are  no  less  applicable  to  illustrate  the  condition  of  poor 
Spain,  at  the  time  we  refer  to. 

I  fully  believe  that  the  claim  of  Mr.  Meade  was,  in 
no  degree,  exaggerated;  and  that  the  amount  fixed 
upon  by  the  Spanish  Government  was  due,  justly  and 


THE   MEADE   CLAIMS.  223 

religiously  due,  to  that  unfortunate  and  cruelly  wronged 
gentleman.  Nevertheless,  as  I  said,  perhaps  our  Gov 
ernment  should  not  pay  the  whole  amount.  Our  Gov 
ernment  had  but  $5,000,000  with  which  to  pay  all 
these  claims.  So  far  as  that  sum  would  pay  them,  and 
no  farther,  were  they  to  be  paid.  All  I  ask  for  the 
present  claim  is,  that  as  great  a  per  centage  be  paid  on 
it,  as  was  paid  on  the  established  claims — be  that  per 
centage  three  fourths  of  the  amount  of  the  claim  or 
only  one  half  of  the  amount  of  the  claim — be  it  in  other 
words,  $300,000  or  $200,000. 

The  honorable  gentleman  from  Tennessee  admits 
that  the  amount  fixed  upon  by  the  Spanish  Govern 
ment  was  justly  due,  and  is  now  justly  due,  from 
Spain.  Would  he  send  the  wronged  and  impoverished 
children  of  Mr.  Meade  to  that  Government  ?  "What, 
however,  if  there  were  technicalities  in  the  case  of  which 
we  could  avail  ourselves  to  escape  the  payment  of  this 
debt,  and  to  burden  Spain  with  it.  Would  we  consent 
to  avail  ourselves  of  them  ?  Forbid  it  justice!  forbid 
it  honor !  Even'  if  we  pay  this  debt,  still  shall  we  not 
have  made  a  sufficiently  good  bargain  out  of  Spain  ? 
It  was  well  understood  that  the  treaty  exonerated  her 
from  all  claims  of  our  citizens.  Spain  so  understood  it, 
as  she  has  repeatedly  declared.  Oh !  we  should  hang 
our  heads  in  shame,  at  the  thought  of  being  unkind 
enough  and  small  enough  to  require  poor  and  unhappy 
Spain  to  pay  this  debt. 


224  THE  MEADE  CLAIMS. 

Sir,  I  am  a  believer  in  a  strong  Government ;  and  1 
would  have  Civil  Government  strong,  the  earth  over. 
It  is  worthless  wherever  it  is  weak.  But,  sir,  a  Gov 
ernment  is  not  necessarily  strong  that  clings,  with 
miserly  grasp,  to  its  dollars ;  that  rejoices  in  an  over 
flowing  Treasury ;  that  multiplies  its  battle-ships,  and 
swells  its  armies.  A  Government  may  do  all  this,  and 
still  be  essentially  weak,  because  essentially  unjust. 
But  that  Government  is  strong,  emphatically  strong, 
which  aims  to  be  the  impersonation  of  justice.  Such 
a  Government  is  strong,  because  it  is  respected  and 
honored  abroad,  and  beloved  at  home.  Be  ours,  sir,  a 
strong,  because  a  just  Government.  But  let  us  remem 
ber  that  the  first  claim  on  justice  is,  that  she  pay  her 
debts.  Let  us  then,  sir,  pay  this  sacred  debt,  that  we 
should  have  paid  thirty  years  ago  ;  and  our  cruel  ne 
glect  to  pay  which  has  been  followed  with  so  much 
suffering  and  sorrow.  I  am  sad  for  the  creditors,  and 
deeply  mortified  for  my  country,  in  this  instance.  In 
the  case  of  the  no  less  sacred  French  claims,  which 
should  have  been  paid  more  than  half  a  century  ago, 
my  pity  for  the  suffering  creditors  is  greater,  because 
they  are  so  very  numerous ;  and  my  mortification  at  the 
disgrace  of  my  Government  and  country  amounts  to 
anguish  of  spirit.  Let  us  pay  these  debts,  sir,  now — 
now,  when  we  so  easily  can — and,  in  such  ways  let  us 
make  ourselves  a  strong  Government  and  a  strong- 
nation. 


SPEECH 


AGAINST 


LIMITING  GRANTS  OF  LAND  TO  WHITE  PERSONS 

MAY      3,1854. 

THE  bill  for  making  donations  of  land  to  actual 
settlers  in  New-Mexico  was  under  consideration.  A 
motion  had  been  made  to  strike  out  from  the  bill  the 
word  "white," 

Mr.  SMITH  said :  I  have  not  risen  to  make  a,  speech. 
There  are  several  subjects  coming  before  us  on  which  I 
wish  to  speak  at  considerable  length.  Among  them 
are  the  Post  Office  and  the  Pacific  railroad.  Hence  I 
do  not  feel  at  liberty  to  consume  more  than  a  few 
minutes  on  this  occasion. 

I  have  risen,  sir,  to  say  that  I  must  vote  against  the 
bill  in  its  present  shape  ;  and  I  wish  my  constituents  to 
have  my  explanation  for  my  vote.  I  cannot  vote  for 
the  bill  if  the  word  "  wluto"  is  retained  in  it. 


226  AGAINST  LIMITING  GKANTS  OF 

I  believe  that  every  person  is  bound  to  esteem  his 
religion  above  everything  else.  Be  his  religion,  true 
or  superstitious,  rational  or  spurious,  he  must  give  it 
this  preference.  My  own  religion  is  very  simple.  It 
consists  in  the  aim  to  deal  impartially  and  justly  with 
all  men.  On  the  authority  of  the  Saviour,  the  com 
mandment  to  do  unto  others  as  we  would  have  others 
do  unto  us  comprises  the  whole  sum  and  substance  of 
Christianity. 

I  hold,  sir,  that  we  should  regard  the  whole  world  as 
before  every  man,  and  every  man  entitled  to  seek  his 
home  in  any  part  of  it.  If  I  wish  to  make  my  home 
in  Africa,  I  am  to  be  allowed  to  do  so ;  and  if  I  am 
there  shut  out  from  benefits  and  blessings  made  com 
mon  to  others,  I  am  wronged,  deeply  wronged.  So  if 
a  black  man  goes  to  New-Mexico,  and  is  there  shut  out 
from  such  common  benefits  and  blessings,  he  is  deeply 
wronged.  Under  the  Jewish  economy,  even  the  fugi 
tive  servant  (fugitive  slave,  as  many  render  it)  was  to 
be  allowed  his  choice  of  a  home  anywhere  within  the 
gates  of  Israel. 

There  is  but  one  true  standard  of  conduct,  and  that 
is  the  Divine  conduct.  "We  are  to  make  our  own 
moral  character  resemble  that  of  our  Maker  as  nearly 
as  we  can.  But,  surely,  no  one  believes  that  our 
Maker  can  approve  of  the  odious  and  guilty  distinction 
under  consideration.  No  one  believes  that  the  incar 
nate  Son  of  God,  were  he  among  us,  would  vote  for 


LAND   TO   WHITE   PERSONS.  227 

tins  distinction.  Says  the  Apostle  Peter — and  I  am 
sure  that  my  learned  and  Catholic  friend  from  Penn 
sylvania,  [Mr.  Chandler,]  will  not  disparage  the  author 
ity  of  that  Apostle,  .on  whom  his  church  is  built — u  God 
is  no  respecter  of  persons  ;  but  in  every  nation,  he  that 
feareth  God  and  worketh  righteousness,  is  accepted 
with  him."  "In  every  nation" — in  nations  of  red  and 
black  men  as  well  as  white  men. 

I  often  meet  with  gentlemen  who  appear  to  believe 
that  black  men  have  not  the  same  nature,  the  same 
wants,  the  same  sensibilities  as  white  men.  On  such 
occasions,  I  am  wont  to.  recall  the  words  of  Shy  lock, 
the  Jew:  "Hath  not  a  Jew  eyes?  Hath  not  a  Jew 
hands,  organs,  dimensions,  senses,  affections,  passions  ? 
Fed  with  the  same  food,  hurt  with,  the  same  weapons, 
subject  to  the  same  diseases,  healed 'by  the  same  means, 
warmed  and  cooled  by  the  same  summer  and  winter  as 
a  Christian  is.  If  you  prick  us,  do  we  not  bleed  ?  If 
you  tickle  us,  do  we  not  laugh  ?  If  you  poison  us,  do 
we  not  die  ?  If  you  wrong  us,  shall  we  not  revenge  ?" 
How  careful,  sir,  should  we  be,  not  to  commit  wrongs ; 
seeing  that  revenge  so  naturally  follows  wrongs  !  And 
if  we  have  committed  them,  how  careful  should  we  be 
to  prevent  revenge  by  repentance  !  Let  it  not  be  said, 
sir,  that  .Shylock  is  poor  authority,  because  he  loved 
money.  His. having  loved  money  is  one  proof  that  he 
belonged  to  the  human  brotherhood,  and  had  expe 
rience  of  our  common  nature. 


228 


I  would,  sir,  that  some  black  Shylock  might  be 
allov/ed  to  enter  this  Hall,  and  to  plead  for  the  striking 
out  of  this  word  "  white."  He  might  be  more  success 
ful  in  his  plea  than  was  the  white  Shylock.  I  would, 
sir,  that  that  noble  man,  Frederick  Douglass,  could  be 
allowed  to  stand  up  here,  and  pour  out  the  feelings  of 
his  great  heart  in  his  rich,  and  mellow,  and  deep  voice. 
I  refer  to  him,  sir,  because  I  regard  him  as  the  man  of 
America,  He  was  held  in  cruel  bondage  until  he  was 
twenty-one  years  old.  Then  he  escaped  from  his  tor 
mentors.  He  was  never  at  school  a  day  in  his  life ; 
and  now  he  is  confessedly  one  of  the  ablest  public 
speakers  and  writers  in  this  country.  I  feel  sure,  sir, 
that,  could  he  be  heard,  he  would  be  able  to  bring  the 
committee  to  repent  of -its  purpose  (if  such  is  its  pur 
pose)  to  retain  the  word  "white." 

Shall  we  never  cease  from  this  prejudice?  Born  and 
bred,  as  I  was,  among  negroes  and  Indians  as  well  as 
whites,  and  respecting  and  loving  all  equally  well,  this 
insane  prejudice  is  well-nigh  incomprehensible  to  me. 
I  am  happy  to  recognize  in  every  man  my  brother — 
ay,  another  self;  and  I  would  that  I  could  infuse  my 
education  at  this  point  into  every  one  who  is  with 
out  it. 

But,  sir,  I  promised  not  to  make  a  speech.  "When 
on  this  prolific  theme  of  our  wrongs  against  the  colored 
man,  I  hardly  know  when  to  stop. 


SPEECH 


ON 


POLYGAMY. 


MAT    4,  1854. 


DURING  the  discussion  of  the  motion  to  strike  out 
from  the  bill  for  granting  lands  to  actual  settlers  in 
Utah,  the  proviso  "  That  the  benefit  of  this  Act  shall 
not  extend  to  any  person  who  shall  now,  or  at  any  time 
hereafter,  be  the  husband  of  more  than  one  wife,"  Mr. 

SMITH  said : 

§ 

Sir,  I  believe  that  no  subject  has  come  before  us  in 
volving  more  important  principles  than  this  subject.  I 
wish  it  might  be  discussed  temperately  and  patiently, 
and  passed  upon  deliberately  and  wisely. 

I  am  in  favor  of  retaining  the  proviso  under  consider 
ation,  and  I  have  risen  to  say  a  few  words  in  reply  to 
the  gentlemen  from  Alabama  and  Georgia,  [Mr.  Phil 
lips,  and  Mr.  Stephens.]  Before  doing  so,  however,  I 
will  notice  what  was  said  by  the  gentleman  from  Yir- 


230  SPEECH  ON  POLYGAMY. 

ginia,  [Mr.  Smith.]    That  gentleman  says  that  the  mar 
riage  tie  among  the  southern  slaves  is  held  sacred.     I 
believe  that  it  is  held  sacred  to  a  considerable  extent ; 
and  therefore  I  am  willing  to  say  so.     But,  sir,  no 
thanks  to  the  laws  for  this.     Thanks  for  it  to  the  faith 
ful  affections  of  the  parties  to  the  marriage,  and  to  the 
kindness  of  masters  and  mistresses  who  permit  the  in 
dulgence  of  these  affections.  But,  sir,  we  are  legislators, 
and  we  are  to  look  at  the  legal  character  of  things.  We 
are  not  to  accept  concessions  and  privileges  in  the  place 
^  of  legal  rights.      We  are  to  inquire  whether  marriage 
among  the  slaves  is  legal.      Now,  sir,  there  is  no  legal 
marriage  among  them.     I  go  so  far  as  to  say  that  I  am 
ready  to  stipulate  in  advance,  that  if  the  gentleman 
from  Virginia  can  show  that  there  is  a  legally  married 
slave  in  all  the  South,  I  will  give  up  all  my  opposition 
to  slavery.     The  slave  is  incapable  of  any  contract- 
even  that  of  matrimony.     The  slaves  after  they  have 
passed  under  the  ceremony  called  marriage,  can  as  well 
as  before  it,  be  sold  from  each  other,  and  separated 
forever. 

Mr.  JONES,  of  Tennessee.  If  the  gentleman  will 
yield  to  me  for  a  moment,  I  will  tell  him  of  one  case. 

Mr.  SMITH.     I  will  yield,  certainly,  for  that  purpose. 

Mr.  JONES.  Some  two  years  ago,  in  this  city,  I 
was  speaking  to  a  gentleman  from  Maryland  about  buy 
ing  some  slaves.  He  said  his  negroes  had  been  mar- 


SPEECH  ON  POLYGAMY.  231 

ried  by  a  Catholic  priest,  that  lie  himself  was  of  the 
same  religion,  and  that  he  would  not  sell  them  unless 
the  priest  was  to  go  along  with  them.  They  were  mar 
ried  by  a  Catholic  priest,  which  I  presume  the  gentle 
man  would  call  legal.  I  have  seen  them  legally  mar 
ried. 

Mr.  SMITH.  I  have  no  doubt  of  what  the  gentleman 
states  in  regard  to  the  Maryland  gentleman.  But  never 
mind  what  the  Catholic  said  to  the  gentleman  of 
Tennessee.  I  ask  that  gentleman  whether  he,  himself, 
believes  that  there  is  legal  marriage  among  the  slaves  ? 
Sir,  the  gentleman  has  carried  us  into  Maryland.  I  will 
follow  him  there,  and  I  will  say  to  him,  that  the  Mary 
land  books  (1  Maryland  Reports,. 5 61,. 563)  show  that 
a  slave  cannot  be  prosecuted  for  bigamy.  He  cannot 
be  guilty  of  bigamy,  for  he  never  was  a  legal  husband. 
He  never  had  ability  to  contract  legal  marriage. 

But,  .sir,  to  the  subject  before  us.  I  agree  with  the 
gentlemen  from  Alabama  and  Georgia,  that  we  are  not 
to  concern  ourselves  with  the  morals  of  the  Territories. 
I  make  the  province  of  Civil  Government  quite  as  nar 
row  as  those  gentlemen  do.  I  do  not  include  in  that 
•  narrow  province  the  duty  of  promoting  morals,  nor  even 
of  protecting  morals'.  All  I  would  receive  at  the  hands 
of  Government  is  protection  of  persons  and  property. 
The  office  of  Government  is  to  hold  a  shield  over 
the  great  essential  natural  rights  of  its  subjects.  Now, 


232  SPEECH   ON   POLYGAMY. 

sir,  I  hold  that  polygamy  invades  a  great  natural  right, 
and  that  it  is,  therefore,  the  duty  of  Civil  Government 
to  suppress  it. 

I  suppose  it  will  not  be  denied  that  polygamy  pre 
vails  in  Utah.  But  it  is  said  that  polygamy  is  a  part  of 
the  religion  of  the  Mormons ;  and  that,  as  we  would 
keep  clear  of  the  offence  of  invading  the  religion  of  our 
subjects,  we  must  not  strike  at  polygamy.  I  admit, 
sir,  that  the  reformation  of  religion  cannot  be  a  legiti 
mate  object  of  legislation.  But,  sir,  that  legislation 
may  be  sound  and  justifiable  which  incidentally  affects 
religious  systems.  If  a  religious  system  tramples  on 
any  of  those  great  rights  which  it  is  the  office  of 
Government  to  protect,  then,  at  just  those  points  where 
such  system  offends,  Government  is  to  meet  it  and 
overcome  it. 

I  argue  the  duty  of  Government  to  suppress  polyga 
my  on  just  the  principles  that  I  argue  the  duty  of  Gov 
ernment  to  suppress  land  monopoly.  I  believe  that  all 
persons  have  an  equal  right  to  the  soil.  The  Maker  of 
the  earth  has  provided  one  home,  not  two  homes,  for 
each  person :  not  two  farms,  but  one  farm,  for  each  far 
mer.  The  right  to  the  soil  is  natural  and  equal.  So, 
sir,  the  right  of  each  man  to  one  wife,  and  each  woman 
to  one  husband,  is  a  natural  right :  and  for  one  man  to 
get  more  than  one  wife,  or  for  one  woman  to  get  more 
than  one  husband,  is  to  violate  this  natural  right,  which 
it  is  the  duty  of  Government  to  protect. 


SPEECH  ON  POLYGAMY.*  233 

The  word  of  God  shows  that  nature  provides  but  one 
wife  for  one  man,  and  one  husband  for  one  woman. 
That  word  teaches  us  that  He  "made  them  male  and 
female"— not  male  and  females,  nor  female  and  males. 
And  if  there  are  any  present  who  do  not  bow  to  the 
authority  of  that  word,  I  would  point  such  to  the  cen 
sus.  The  census  in  every  country,  and  in  every  age, 
shows  that  the  sexes  are  numerically  equal,  and  that  the 
arrangements  of  Providence  forbid  polygamy, 

I  have  proceeded  in  my  argument  for  sustaining  this 
proviso  on  the  ground  that  this  Government  has  as  fall 
power  and  authority  over  the  people  and  institutions  of 
its  Territories  as  a  State  Government  has  over  the  peo 
ple  and  institutions  within  its  jurisdiction.  Now,  I  ask 
the  gentleman  from  Georgia  [Mr.  Stephens]  whether 
the  Government^  his  State  should  or  would  permit  the 
dark-haired  men  of  his  State  to  press  and  practice  upon 
their  claim  to  a  hundred  wives  each,  and  thus  to  shut 
out  the  light-haired  men  from  marriage?  But  I  will 
consume  no  more  of  the  time,  as  so  many  are  eager  to 
speak. 


SPEECH 


ON  THE 


PACIFIC      RAILROAD. 

MAY     30,    1854. 

[THE  motto  which  Mr.  Smith  prefixed  to  this  Speech  when  it  was 
first  printed  was:  "  Keep  Government  within  its  limits."] 

THE  Bill  to  provide  for  building  a  railroad  from  the 
Atlantic  States  to  the  Pacific  Ocean  was  under  consi 
deration.  Mr.  SMITH  said : 

Whatever  appearances  to  the  contrary,  nevertheless, 
Mr.  Chairman,  the  Government  itself  is,  according  to 
the  provisions  of  the  bill,  to  be  the  virtual  builder  of 
the  road.  And  the  Government  is  to  be,  also,  the 
owner  of  the  road ; — the  literal  owner,  so  far  as  it  shall 
lie  within  our  National  Territories — and,  in  no  unim 
portant  sense,  the  owner  of  it,  even  so  far,  as  it  shall  lie 
within  the  States ;  its  non-intervention,  in  the  latter  case, 
being  -another  signal  instance  of  intervention  non-inter- 


23()  SPEECH   ON   THE   PACIFIC   KAILKOAD. 

vention.  In  all  cases,  the  Government  retains  the  right 
to  regulate  the  charges  for  transportation  on  the  road ; 
and,  surely,  it  is  not  extravagant  to  say  that  it  must  be 
ownership — and  not  merely  ownership,  but  paramount 
ownership — which  can  properly  assert  such  a  right. 

Such,  sir,  is  to  be  the  essential  and  controlling  con 
nection  of  Government  with  the  road :  and  because  it 
is  to  be  such  a  connection,  I  have  risen  to  oppose  the 
bill. 

I  need  not  say,  that  I  desire  to  see  a  railroad  to  the 
Pacific.  "What  American  does  not  desire  it?  Com 
merce,  travel,  the  love  of  country,  the  love  of  each 
part  of  it  for  every  other  part  of  it,  and  the  deep  hope 
in  every  true  American  breast,  that  we  shall  ever  re 
main  one  country  ; — these,  and  countless  other  consid 
erations,  all  unite  in  calling  for  such  a  useful  and  plea 
sant  connection — such  an  iron  bond  between  the  Atlan 
tic  and  the  Pacific,  the  East  and  the  West.  Neverthe 
less,  I  would  not  have  Government  either  own,  or  build 
the  road.  Great  as  is  the  good  to  come  from  the  road, 
it  would,  nevertheless,  be  largely  overbalanced  by  the 
evil  of  having  such  a  connection  of  Government  with* 
it,  as  the  bill  proposes.  Indeed,  I  am  free  to  say,  that, 
much  as  I  desire  the  road,  I  had  far  rather,  that  it  would 
never  be  built,  than  built  upon  the  terms  of  this  bill. 
But  the  road  will  be  built.  Private  enterprise  is  abun 
dantly  adequate  to  the  undertaking. 

It  is  our  frequent   boast,  that  this   Eepublic  has 


SPEECH  ON  THE   PACIFIC  EAILBOAD.  237 

solved  the  great  problem  of  self-government.  I  admit, 
that  it  has,  if  we  take  the  problem  in  its  ordinary 
sense—that  is,  in  a  very  limited  sense.  For  the  sake 
of  the  argument,  if  for  no  more,  I  admit,  that,  in  this 
sense,  our  Kepublic  has  solved  it  fully,  honorably, 
triumphantly. 

But  what  is  meant  by  this  solution  ?  Is  it  meant, 
that  the  people  have  shown  their  capacity  and  their 
willingness  to  plan  and  to  do  for  themselves  in  their 
own  matters,  and  that  they  need  not,  and  desire  not,  the 
paternal  counsels  and  guiding  hand  of  Government  ? 
Oh,  no  I  something  immeasurably  short  of  this  is  meant 
by  it.  Nothing  more  is  meant  by  it  than  that  the  peo 
ple  have  shown  themselves  capable  of  choosing  both 
the  form  and  the  administrators  of  their  Government, 
Nothing  more  is  meant  by  this  solution  than  that  it 
shows  the  doctrine  to  be  false,  which  teaches  that,  in 
order  to  escape  anarchy  and  ruin,  the  people  must  be 
denied  all  part  in  choosing  either  the  structure  or  the 
officers  of  their  Government, 

Far  am  I  from  saying,  that  this  solution,  which  we 
have  achieved,  is  unimportant.  I  admit,  that  the  human 
race  has  been  honored,  and  carried  a  wide  step  upward 
by  it.  We  have  afforded  abundant  proof,  that  the  masses 
are  not  so  wanting  in  capacity,  as  to  be  obliged  to  leave 
it  to  a  single  despot,  or  to  an  oligarchy,  to  say  how  they 
shall  be  governed : — but  that  they  are  capable  of  saying 
it  for  themselves.  I  own,  that  this  is  much.  Never- 


238  SPEECH   ON  THE  PACIFIC  RAILKOAD. 

theless,  it  is  not,  as  most  persons  seem  to  suppose,  the 
whole  realization  of  the  whole  idea  of  democracy.  It  is 
but  a  very  partial  realization  of  that  beautiful,  precious, 
and  grand  idea.  For  a  people  to  learn,  that  they  are 
entitled  to  choose -their,  own  Government  is  only  the  first 
and  lowest  lesson  in  democracy.  But  for  a  people  to 
learn,  that  it  is  their  duty  to  grow  into  the  government 
of  themselves,  and  not  to  suffer  Civil  Government  to 
mingle  itself  with  their  affairs— this  is  the  ultimate 
and  highest  lesson  in  democracy. 

The  impressive  authority  of  Washington  is  often 
quoted  against  the  evil  of  mixing  up  the  concerns  of 
one  Government  with  the  concerns  of  another  Govern 
ment.  This  is  a  great  evil ;  and  it  should  be  carefully 
'  guarded  against.  But  a  far  greater  evil,  and  to  be  far 
more  carefully  guarded  against,  is  the  mixing  up  of 
Government  with  the  concerns  of  its  people.  Every 
nation  has  more  to  fear  from  its  own  Government  than 
from  any,  or  even  all,  other  Governments;  and,  I  add, 
that  every  nation  has  actually  been  far  more  injured  by 
its  own  Government,  than  by  any,  and  even  all,  other 
Governments. 

Is  the  day  never  to  come,  when  Government  shall  be 
confined  to  its  proper  limits  ;  to  its  sole  office  of,  pro 
tecting  its  subjects  from  aggressions  upon  each  other, 
and  from  foreign  aggressions?  Is  the  day  never  to 
come,  when  the  people  shall  resist  the  intrusions  of 
Government,  and  claim  the  right,  ay,  and  have  the  dis- 


SPEECH  ON  THE  PACIFIC  RAILROAD.  239 

position,  to  attend  to  their  own  affairs  in  their  own  way? 
Until  that  day  shall  come,  the  proper  work  of  each 
party — tha,t  is  of  the  Government  and  of  the  people- 
will  be  badly  done  ;  for  until  that  day,  Government 
will  be  so  much  engrossed  with  its  usurpations  of  the 
people's  work,  as  to  misdo  or  neglect  its  own  work  ;  and, 
until  that  day,  the  people's  own  work,  so  far  as  it  is 
taken  out  of  their  own  hands,  and  done  by  wrong  hands, 
will  be  badly  done. 

How  false  and  ruinous  are  the  present  relations  be 
tween  Government  and  people !  Government,  instead 
of  being  the  servant  of  the  people,  and  of  being  wielded 
by  the  people  for  the  good  of  the  people,  is  the  master 
and  disposer  of  the  people.  Kussia  does  not  own  the 
Russian  Government,  but  the  Russian  Government 
owns  Russia,  England  does  not  own  the  English  Gov 
ernment,  but  the  English  Government  owns  England. 
And  how  degraded  is  the  position  toward  Government 
of  the  people  of  France  1  Instead  of  aspiring  to  be, 
every  one  his  own  master,  the  supplier  of  his  own  wants, 
and  the  creator  of  his  own  fortunes,  they  are,  every  few 
years,  clamoring  for  a  new  Government — not  for  a  Gov 
ernment,  which  shall  leave  more  room  for  the  indivi 
dual  to  grow  in  independence  and  dignity,  but  for  a 
Government,  which  shall  reduce  its  subjects  to  still 
greater  dependence,  and  meddle,  still  more  than  the  pre 
sent  one,  with  their  callings  and  concerns.  Indeed,  it 
would  seem,  as  if  the  Frenchman's  definition  of  the  most 


240  SPEECH   ON  THE  PACIFIC  RAILKOAD. 

republican  Government  (for  it  is  for  such  he  clamors) 
is  the  Government,  on  which  its  subjects  can  hang  most 
helplessly  and  ignominiously.  What  wonder,  then,  that 
France  should  be  a  frequent  and  an  easy  prey  to  flatter 
ing  and  plausible  despotisms ! 

And  what  -shall  we  say  of  our  own  countrymen  in 
this  connection?  Do  they  suffer,  do  they  court,  the 
agency  and  presence  of  Government  in  the  affairs  of  the 
people  to  the  extent,  that  the  inhabitants  of  other  coun 
tries  do  ?  I  admit,  that  they  do  not.  I  admit,  that  in 
this  respect,  they  have  learned  more  than  others.  And 
yet,  considering  how  much  better  school  they  have  had 
to  learn  in,  they  have  proved  themselves  to  be  but  dull 
scholars.  The  American  people  are  well-nigh  as  ready 
as  other  people  to  have  Government  regulate  trade,  and 
build  asylums,  and  railroads,  and  canals.  It  is  true,  that 
they  do,  in  terms,  deny  to  Government  the  right  of 
meddling  with  the  Church.  But  this  is  their  inconsist 
ency.  For,  so  long  as  they  let  Government  into  their 
school-houses,  why,  in  the  name  of  consistency,  should 
they  shut  it  out  of  their  meeting-houses?  Is  not  the 
school,  as  well  as  the  church,  a  place  for  religious  in 
struction  ?  But  they  will  not  continue  this  inconsist 
ency  much  longer.  Very  soon,  they  will  either  shut 
Government  out  of  the  school,  as  well  as  the  church,  or 
let  Government  into  the  church,  as  well  as  the  school, 
unless,  indeed,  religious  instruction  shall  (as  it  never 


SPEECH    ON   THE   PACIFIC   RAILROAD.  241 

should)  be  banished  from  the  school.  At  no  less  price 
can  this  alternative  be  avoided. 

Why  is  it,  that  the  American  people  and  other  en 
lightened  people  are  so  reluctant  to  shake  off  their  de 
pendence  on  Government,  and  to  trj,  and  trust  in,  the 
strength  of  their  own  feet  ?  It  is  because  they  are,  in 
this  respect,  the  victims  of  habit.  Having  always  been 
in  the  leading-strings  of  Government,  they  are  very- 
slow  to  learn  to  go  alone.  They  are  even  unconscious, 
that  they  can  go  alone.  Indeed,  it  must  be  confessed, 
that  they  are  so  enfeebled  and  dwarfed  by  their  habit  of 
dependence,  as  to  have  lost  much  of  their  ability  to  go 
alone.  Having  leaned  so  long  and  so  heavily  on  Gov 
ernment,  it  is  not  easy  for  them  to  straighten  up. 

I  referred  to  the  preference  of  Frenchmen  for  the 
Government,  which  meddles  most  with  matters  of  the 
people,  and,  I  might  have  added,  which  expends  most 
money  upon  those  matters.  But  is  there  not  danger, 
that  this  will  be  the  preference  of  the  Americans  also  ; 
and  that  the  Administration,  that  will  be  most  popular 
with  them,  will  be  the  one,  which  will  be  most  profuse 
in  its  expenditures  on  roads  and  canals,  and  on  those 
other  objects,  on  which,  whatever  is  expended,  should 
be  expended  by  the  people,  and  the  people  only  ? 

The  protection  of  the  persons  and  property  of  its  sub 
jects,  is  the  whole  legitimate  province  of  Government. 
Is  it  said,  that,  if  confined  to  this  narrow  province,  it 
will  have  but  little  to  do  ?  It  is  true,  that  it  will ;  and 
11 


242  SPEECH   ON   THE   PACIFIC   EAILKOAD« 

that  is  one  reason,  and  a  great  reason,  why  it  will  do 
that  little  well.  Is  it  said,  that,  in  such  case,  it  will 
have  little  to  do,  except  to  carry  on  wars  for  its  people  ? 
But,  even  of  that  it  will  have  little  or  nothing  to  do. 
Wars  come  from  the  fact,  that  Government  is  so  big, 
and  the  people  so  little.  Reduce  bloated  Government 
to  its  proper  dimensions,  and  thus  make  room  for  the 
shrivelled  people  to  swell  into  theirs,  and  war  will  be  a 
very  rare  occurrence.  Wars  come  from  the  fact,  that 
Government  is  made  the  master,  and  the  people  the 
servant.  Reverse  this  relation,  and  war  would,  indeed, 
be  a  rare  occurrence ;  for,  then,  Government,  would  re 
flect  the  mind  of  the  people,  and  the  mind  of  the  people 
is  not  for  war.  It  is  Government,  that  gets  up  wars. 
Not  one  in  five  of  our  people  was  originally  in  favor  of 
our  wicked  war  with  Mexico,  the  reckoning-day  for 
which  will  surely  come,  in  eternity,  and,  most  proba 
bly,  in  time,  also.  I  have  not  characterized  this  war  as 
wicked,  because  I  regard  some  wars  as  innocent.  It  is 
true,  that  our  war  upon  poor  Mexico  was  superlatively 
wicked ;  but  all  wars  are  wicked,  and  no  truer  saying 
fell  from  Dr.  Franklin's  lips,  than  that  there  never  was 
a  good  war,  nor  a  bad  peace. 

I  have  ascribed  wars  to  the  undue  proportions  and 
undue  influence  of  Government.  In  vain,  will  it  be, 
that  Peace  Societies  labor  to  prevent  wars,  if  Govern 
ment  shall  be  allowed  such  proportions  and  influence. 
The  Government,  that  shall  be  allowed  to  overshadow 


SPEECH   ON  THE  PACIFIC  KAILKOAD.  243 

and  control  the  people,  will  be  in  favor  of  wars ;  for 
such  a  Government  will  find  its  enjoyment  and  glory 
in  wars. 

I  said,  substantially,  that  Government  would  keep 
out  of  war,  if  it  reflected  the  mind  of  the  people.     But 
I  shall  be  told,  that,  in  a  Kepublic,  it  does  reflect  the 
mind  of  the  people.     This  would  be  true,  if  it  bore  the 
relation  of  servant.     But,  unhappily,  it  is  the  master  ; 
and,  what  is  worse,  it  is  the  master  with  the  approba 
tion  of  the  people.     The  people  choose  their  ruler  not 
only,  nor  even  mainly,  for  the  purpose  of  having  him 
protect  them.     Their  leading  object,  in  choosing  him, 
is  to  have  him  direct  in  their  affairs — in  their  affairs 
with  which  Government  has  legitimately  nothing  to  do. 
Hence  he  becomes  their  master.     Before  he  became 
such,  he  may  have  been  like  them  ;  but  it  is  unreason 
able  to  count  on  his  continuing  to  be  like  them.     The 
new  relation  between  them  has  made  them  unlike  each 
other.     And,  yet,  I  admit,  that  they  may  come  to  be 
alike,  and  that  they  not  unfrequently  do  come  to  be 
alike.     I  admit  that,  even  where  the  Government  is 
the  master,  the  Government  and  the  people  may,  and 
often  do,  grow  into  a  resemblance  to  each  other.    Even 
such  a  Government  may  study  to  be  somewhat  like  the 
people ;  but  the  mutual  likeness  will  be  chiefly  owing 
to  the  fact,  that  Government  has  succeeded  in  corrupt 
ing   the  people  into  an    assimilation  to  itself.     The 


244  SPEECH  ON  THE  PACIFIC  RAILROAD. 

servant  is  more  like  to  follow  tlie  master  than  the 
master  the  servant. 

The  meddling  of  our  Government  with  the  affairs  of 
our  people,  is  sometimes  justified  on  the  ground,  that, 
in  a  republic,  the  Grovernment  and  the  people  are  one. 
But  the  assumption  of  this  identity  is  fatal  to  the  as 
sumption,  that  Government  needs  to  undertake  or  su 
perintend  any  part  of  the  proper  work  of  the  people.  If 
the  Government  and  the  people  are  one,  and  so  entirely 
one,  that  the  people  would  dispose  of  their  affairs  in 
just  the  same  way,  that  the  Government  would,  pray, 
why  is  it,  then,  that  the  Government  needs  concern 
itself  with  those  affairs  ?  The  very  fact,  that  Govern 
ment  usurps  the  work  of  the  people,  proves  that  Gov 
ernment  and  the  people  would  not  do  this  work  in  the 
same  way.  If  Government  knew,  that  all  sections  of 
the  people  would  regulate  and  conduct  their  trade  just 
as  Government  would  have  it  regulated  and  conducted, 
then,  obviously,  there  would  be  no  tariffs.  If  Govern 
ment  knew,  that  all  sections  of  the  people  would  man 
age  their  schools  just  as  it  would  have  them  managed, 
then,  obviously,  Government  would  not  meddle  with 
schools.  So,  too,  Government  would  have  no  occasion 
to  build  railroads  and  canals  for  the  people,  did  it  know, 
that  all  sections  of  the  people  would  build  them  when, 
where,  and  as  it  would  build  them.  Admit,  if  you 
please,  that  our  Government  represents  the  average 
interests  and  the  average  wishes  of  the  various  sections 


SPEECH  ON  THE  PACIFIC  KAILKOAD.     •       245 

of  the  American  people :  admit,  if  you  please,  that  a 
line  of  policy  pursued  by  our  Government  is  the  diag 
onal  or  compromise  line  between  the  planting  interest 
of  South-Carolina,  and  the  opposite  manufacturing 
interest  of  New-England :  admit  all  this,  and,  never 
theless,  it  is  preposterous  to  say,  that  our  Government, 
in  its  various  meddlings  with  the  work'  of  the  people, 
does  just  what  each  and  all  the  sections  of  that  people 
would  have  it  do,  and  just  as  they  would  do  it  them 
selves. 

I  have  said  enough  to  expose  the  falsity  of  the  argu 
ment  in  favor  of  governmental  assumption  of  the  work 
of  the  people,  so  far  as  that  argument  is  founded,  either 
on  the  assumed  likeness,  or  on  the  assumed  identity, 
between  Government  and  people. 

I  said,  that  Government,  if  confined  within  its  proper 
limits,  would  have  but  little  to  do.  Our  Federal  Gov 
ernment  does  enough  to  run  up  its  annual  expenditures 
into  the  neighborhood  of  $50,000,000.  Drive  it  back, 
however,  from  its  excesses,  and  from  its  usurpations,  to 
its  own  and  its  only,  proper  work,  and  its  annual  ex 
penditures  would  fall  down  as  low  as  $5, 000, 000.  Yes, 
$5,000,000  are  more  than  this  Government  needs  to 
expend  in  time  of  peace ;  and  a  just  Government — a 
Christian  Government — will  never  be  involved  in  war. 
Such  a  Government,  I  admit,  the  world  has  never  seen 
— no,  nor  any  approximation  to  it ;  not,  however,  be 
cause  no  people  could  have  it,  but,  solely,  because  no 


246        '    SPEECH  ON  THE  PACIFIC  EAILEOAD. 

people  would  have  it.  The  American  people  can,,  at 
any  time,  speak  such  a  Government  into  being ;  and 
great  is  their  sin  for  not  availing  themselves  of  their 
power.  Confine  our  Government  to  its  legitimate  work, 
and  the  length  of  a  Congressional  session  would  be  lit 
tle  more  than  a  week,  where  it  is  now  a  month.  Thus 
confine  it,  and  we  should  not  be  wasting  our  time,  or 
rather  the  people's  time,  since  they  pay  for  it,  on  the 
bill  before  us. 

But  I  must  delay  no  longer  to  look  at  the  arguments, 
which  are  employed  in  behalf  of  building  by  Govern 
ment,  a  railroad  to  the  Pacific. 

1.  It  will  facilitate  the  protection  of  the  whites  from  the 
Indians.      But  whether  it  be,  that  the  whites  need  pro 
tection  from  the  Indians,  or,  what  is  more  probable,  that 
the  Indians  need  protection  from  the  whites,  it  can  be 
afforded,  in  either  case,  far  cheaper,  and  more  effectual, 
than  by  putting  Government  to  the  vast  expense  of 
building  this  road. 

2.  The  road  would  be  an  important  facility  in  the  event 
of  war  with  a  Power,  that  could  bring  an  army  and  navy 
to  our  Western  coast.     But  we  must  be  so  just  and  wise, 
as  not  to  be  involved  in  war  with  any  Power.    If,  how 
ever,  we  shall  find  ourselves  involved  in  such  war,  as  is 
here  apprehended,  is  it  not  probable,  that  private  enter 
prise  will  have  built  the  road  by  the  time  of  such  war ; 
or,  at  least,  have  carried  it  as  far  toward  completion,  as 
it,  would  have  been  carried  by  the  Government  ? 


SPEECH   ON   THE   PACIFIC   KA1LKOAD.  247 

Let  it  not  be  thought,  that  I  undervalue  the  road,  as 
a  means  of  protection.  I  cheerfully  admit  that,  in  this 
respect,  it  would  have  no  small  value ;  and  that  I  would, 
therefore,  be  willing  to  have  Government  give  five  or 
ten  millions  of  dollars  to  the  association,  that  shall  build 
it.  Mark,  that  I  say  dollars,  not  acres.  I  still  deny,  as 
I  have  repeatedly  done  on  this  floor,  that  the  public 
lands  belong  to  Government.  Government  no  more 
owns  them  than  it  does  the  sunlight,  which  falls  upon 
them,  or  the  atmosphere,  which  floats  over  them.  All 
that  Government  has  to  do  with  them,  is  but  to  protect 
and  regulate  the  occupation  of  them.  It  is  not  for 
Government  to  sell  them ;  and  it  is  not  for  Government 
to  give  them  away,  any  more  than  it  was  for  Satan  to 
give  away  to  the  Saviour  "all  the  kingdoms  of  the 
world."  I  have  said  it  in  this  Hall,  more  than  once, 
perhaps  more  than  twice;  I -am  so  full  of  it,  that  I  could 
well-nigh  consent  to  say,  in  all  my  speeches,  as  did  Cato 
his  "Carthago  delenda  est"  in  all  his— that  the  vacant 
land  belongs  to  the  landless.  The  simple  fact,  that  the 
one  is  vacant,  and  the  other  landless,  is  of  itself  the  high 
est  proof,  that  they  should  be  allowed  to  come  together. 
Alas,  what  a  crime  against  nature,  that  they  should  be 
kept  apart,  and  that,  in  the  surpassingly  touching  words 
of  the  poet : 

•'  Millions  of  hands  their  acres  want, 
And  millions  of  acres  want  hands." 

Oh,  when  will  statesmen  be  men! — and  consent  to 


248  SPEECH   OX   THE   PACIFIC   KAILKOAD. 

feel  and  act  like  men?  How  much  better  that,  than  for 
men  to  struggle  to  become  statesmen ;  and  to  consent  to 
desert  their  noble  nature  and  their  glorious  manhood 
for  that  poor  conventional  thing  called  statesmanship  ? 

I  said,  that  I  should  be  willing  to  have  Government 
give  five  or  ten  millions  of  dollars  to  the  association, 
that  shall  build  this  road.  I  add,  that  I  should  be  will 
ing  to  have  it  give  an  equal  sum  to  the  association,  that 
shall  build  another  railroad  to  the  Pacific ;  and,  also,  to 
the  association,  that  shall  build  still  another.  All  this 
is,  of  course,  with  the  understanding,  that  the  roads 
shall  be  built  within  a  few  years,  and  on  widely  differ 
ent  routes.  I  would  take  this  occasion  to  say,  that 
I  have  no  sympathy  with  that  jealousy  of  a  southern 
route,  which  is  felt  in  some  quarters.  I  need  not  say, 
that  I  would  have  slaveholders  put  away  slavery. 
Nevertheless,  however  closely  they  may  cling  to  it,  I 
would  not,  for  that  reason,  deny  them  a  road,  any  more 
than  I  would  deny  bread  and  meat  to  such,  as  diffei 
with  me  on  a  great  moral  or  political  question.  But  let 
me  here  say  to  the  honorable  gentleman  from  Virginia, 
[Governor  Smith,]  that,  whilst  I  would  give  roads,  and 
bread  and  meat  to  all,  I  would  give  to  none  those  expen 
sive  California  "stiff  drinks,"  of  which  he  spoke,  a  week 
or  two  since.  Alcoholic  drinks,  whether  stiff  or  slender, 
are  poisons — poisons  to  the  body  and  the  soul ;  and  to 
no  one  will  I  give  poisons  for  a  beverage. 

No,  let  the  south,  as  well  as  the  centre  and  the  north, 


SPEECH  ON  THE  PACIFIC  RAILKOAD.  249 

have  its  railroad  to  the  Pacific;  and  if  the  south  lacks 
Mexican  territory,  in  order  to  perfect  its  route,  and  it  can 
be  obtained  on  reasonable  and  honorable  terms,  then  let 
our  Government,  prompted  by  the  spirit  of  wisdom  and 
justice,  obtain  it  for  her. 

3.  The  road  will  be  a  great — a  well-nigh  indispensable — 
commercial  and  travelling  facility.     I  admit  it.     But, 
though  Government  may  build  roads,  that  are  abso 
lutely  necessary  for  protection,  and  that  will  not  be 
built,  unless  Government  builds  them ;  it,  nevertheless, 
has  no  right  to  build  roads  either  for  the  advantage  of 
merchants,  or  the  accommodation  of  travellers. 

4.  Another  argument  in  favor  of  building  the  road  Toy 
Government  is,  that,  if  it  is  not  so  built,  it  will  not  be  built 
at  all     But  I  would  turn  this  argument  against  the 
building  of  the  road  by  Government:  and  I  would  say, 
that  if  it  cannot  be  built,  unless  Government  build  it, 
then  it  manifestly  should  not  be  built.     For  if  sharp- 
sighted  individual  enterprise   cannot   be  tempted  to 
undertake  it,  then  it  certainly  would  be  a  most  un 
profitable  and  unwise  undertaking  for  Government. 

•5.  The  only  other  argument  I  shall  notice  is,  that  private 
means  are  insufficient  to  build  the  road.  This  argument, 
if  somewhat  like  the  one  I  last  considered,  is,  neverthe 
less,  clearly  distinguishable  from  it. 

Mr.  McDouGALL,  of  California.    Does  the  gentleman 
from   New- York,    [Mr.    Smith,]    understand   the  bill, 
11* 


250  SPEECH  ON  THE   PACIFIC  RAILROAD. 

reported  by  tlie  committee,  to  provide  for  a  road  to 
be  constructed  and  owned  by  the  Government? 

Mr.  SMITH.  I  do  ;  and  I  have  based  my  argument 
on  that  interpretation  of  the  bill. 

Mr.  McDouGALL.  I  do  not  know  whether  the  gentle 
man  from  New- York  has  read  the  bill. 

Mr.  SMITH.  The  gentleman  from  California  may 
depend  upon  it,  that  I  do  not  rise  to  make  a  speech 
upon  a  bill,  without  having  first  read  the  bill. 

Mr.  McDouGALL.  I  contend,  that  the  bill  does  not 
provide  for  any  connection  between  the  Government 
and  the  road.  The  Government  are  neither  to  own 
nor  control  the  road. 

Mr.  SMITH.  All  that  I  need  say  in  reply  is,  that  the 
gentleman  and  I  put  different  interpretations  on  the  bill. 

When  the  honorable  gentleman  interrupted  me,  (the 
interruption  was  entirely  kind  and  acceptable,)  I  was 
proceeding  to  examine  the  argument,  that  the  road 
must  be  built  by  Government,  for  the  reason,  that 
private  means  are  insufficient  to  build  it.  But  whether 
private  means  are,  or  are  not,  sufficient  to  this  end, 
certain  it  is,  that  Government  cannot  have  legitimate 
means  for  building  roads,  the  main  object  of  which  is 
the  benefit  of  trade  and  travel.  Certain  it  is,  that  if 
Government  gets  the  means  for  building  such  roads, 
it  gets  them  by  plundering  the  people. 

Having  glanced  at  the  arguments  for  building  the 


SPEECH  ON  THE   PACIFIC  RAILKOAD.  251 

road  by  Government,  I  will  now  glance  at  those  against 
it.  My  time  is  too  limited  to  allow  me  to  do  more  than 
glance  at  them : 

1.  The  building,  repairing,  and  working,  or  using,  of 
the  road,  if  done  by  Government,  will  cost  at  least  fifty  per 
cent,  more  than  if  done  by  an  association. 

2.  TJiat  there  will  be  more  than  one  railroad  to  the 
Pacific  is  an  argument  against  Governments  building  one 
of  them. 

It  is  highly  probable  that,  at  no  distant  day,  there 
will  be  three  railroads  from  the  Mississippi  to  the  Pa 
cific.  Now,  if  one  of  them  shall  belong  to  Government, 
money  will  be  lavished  upon  it,  without  stint,  to  sustain 
it  against  the  competition  of  the  others.  But  this  will 
be  wrong,  not  only  because  it  will  be  injurious  and 
oppressive  to  the  individuals,  who  shall  own  the  other 
roads,  but  because  such  gross  partiality  to  the  section, 
through  which  the  Government  road  passes,  will  be 
injurious  and  oppressive  to  the  sections,  through  which 
the  other  roads  pass.  In  that  case,  Government  would 
be  arraying  its  great  power  against  the  meritorious 
enterprises  of  portions  of  its-  citizens;  and  it  would 
also  be  putting  the  whole  country  under  contribution 
for  the  purpose  of  benefiting  one  section  of  it,  and  with 
the  effect  of  damaging  other  sections  of  it.  A  similar 
argument  I  employed  against  Government's  helping  to 
build  the  Minnesota  railroad,  and  a  similar  argument 
was  among  the  arguments,  which  influenced  me  to 


252  SPEECH   ON   THE   PACIFIC   RAILED  AD. 

vote  against  granting  such  help  to  the  Wisconsin  rail 
road. 

This  is  a  good  occasion  for  me  to  say,  that  Govern 
ment  should  have  the  confidence  of  all  its  subjects; 
and  that,  in  order  to  have  this  confidence,  it  must  be 
impartial  with  them  all ;  and  that,  in  order  to  be  impar 
tial  with  them  all,  it  must  not  mix  itself  up  with  the 
particular  concerns  of  any. 

I  would  add,  under  this  head,  that  I  do  not  forget, 
that,  by  the  provisions  of  this  bill,  the  whole  road  may, 
ultimately,  be  owned  by  State  Governments.  But  my 
objections  to  such  ownership  are  as  decided  as  to  the 
ownership  of  the  road  by  the  Federal  Government.  I 
hold,  that  not  the  Federal  Government  only,  but  the 
State  Government  also,  is  unfit  for  such  ownership; 
and  that  Civil  Government  is  perverted,  when  brought 
into  such  connections. 

3.  Another  objection  to  the  building  of  this  road  by  Gov 
ernment  is,  that  the  patronage  and  power  of  Government 
would  be  greatly  increased  thereby. 

The  present  amount  of  Government  patronage  and 
power  is  deeply  corrupting  both  to  Government  and 
people.  But  for  Government  to  have  the  proposed 
connection  with  the  road  to  the  Pacific,  would  greatly 
increase  this  patronage,  this  power,  and  this  corruption. 
What  I  have  here  said  regarding  patronage  is  not 
intended  to  apply  to  the  present  any  more  than  to 
other  AdministrationR.  I  know  not,  that  the  present 


SPEECH   ON  THE  PACIFIC  RAILROAD.  253 

Administration   is   more  faulty  than   others,  in  this 
respect. 

4.  Ld  Government  build  this  road,  and  there  ivill  be  no 
assignable  limits  to  its  future  departure  from  its  own 
province,  and  to  its  future  invasion  of  the  province  of 
the  people. 

The  building  of  this  road  by  Government  would  be 
an  irresistible  precedent  for  every  other  gigantic  work, 
and  every  other  profuse  expenditure,  at  the  hands  of 
Government.      What  railroad,  what  canal,  would  Gov 
ernment  then  shrink  from  building?     "What  conquest 
would  it  feel  itself  to  be  too  feeble  to  achieve?      Kay, 
what  conception  of  national  glory  would  be  too  vast 
or   visionary  for   Government  then   to  undertake  to 
realize  ?      Perhaps,  by  that  time,  a  hundred  millions 
of  dollars  would  not  be  regarded  as  an  extravagant 
endowment  for  a  national  school  with  a  branch  in  each 
State.     And,  after  such  an  endowment,  what  would  be 
thought  more  fit  than  to  invest  so  great  and  glorious  a 
Government,  as  ours  would  then  be,  with  the  care  of 
the  Church  ?    And,  surely,  the  national  church  of  great 
America  should  not  be  eclipsed  by  the  national  church 
of  little  Judea.      A  tithe  of  the  products  of  our  broad 
land  would  no  more  than  suffice  for  the  splendors  of  our 
national  church.     Let  not  the  idea  be  scouted,  that  the 
American  Government  can  ever  run  into  such  extrava 
gance  and  ursurpation.     If  our  people  are  so  foolish,  as 
to  let  Government  run  at  all  beyond  its  legitimate 


254  SPEECH  ON  THE  PACIFIC  RAILKOAD. 

limits,  they  may  soon  find,  that  it  will  run  indefinitely 
beyond  them;  and  that,  in  the  end,  it  will  be  impossi 
ble  to  erect  an  insurmountable  barrier  against  the 
usurper. 

5.  The  vast  expenditure  of  Government  in  building  this 
road,  and  in  doing  what  else  that  expenditure  would  lead 
to,  would  fasten  upon  the  nation  the  cruel  and  oppressive 
tariff  system. 

This  result  accomplished,  and  then  farewell  to  all  our 
hopes  of  a  frugal  and  honest  Government: — for  no 
Government  will  be  either  frugal  or  honest,  that  is  not 
held  closely  responsible  for  its  expenditures ;  and  no 
Government  will  be  so  held,  until  the  burden  of  its 
expenditures  shall  rest  upon  the  people,  in  the  form  of 
direct  taxation.  And  when  the  tariff  system  is  fastened 
upon  us,  then  farewell  also  to  all  our  hopes  of  a  Gov 
ernment,  that  shall  bear  lightly  on  the  poor;  for  the 
effect  of  the  tariff  system  is  to  burden  the  poor — the 
masses  of  the  consumers — with  the  support  of  Govern 
ment,  and  to  let  the  riches  of  the  rich  escape  taxation. 
I  am  far  from  saying,  that  this  is  the  policy  of  the  sys 
tem  and  the  intent  of  its  advocates.  On  the  contrary, 
I  am  free  to  admit,  that  its  advocates  are  as  upright 
and  as  kind-hearted  as  its  opponents.  Nevertheless, 
the  wrong,  which  they  inflict,  is  none  the  less  grievous 
because  of  their  honesty  and  benevolence. 

I  do  not  say,  that  the  instance,  can  never  occur  in 
which  Government  would  be  justified  in  helping  to 


SPEECH  ON  THE  PACIFIC  RAILROAD.  255 

sustain  some  of  tlie  pursuits  of  its  subjects,  and  in  pro 
tecting  from  overwhelming  foreign  competition  some 
of  the  modes  of  their  industry.  Such  an  instance 
might  possibly  occur,  under  an  impending  war.  But 
the  end  should  be  attained,  not  by  tariffs,  but  by  boun 
ties — by  bounties  produced  by  assessments  on  property 
or  ability,  rather  than  by  tariffs,  which  tax  consumption 
and  poverty. 

6.  The  last  objection  to  building  the  road  by  Govern 
ment  with  which  I  shall  weary  the  Committee,  is,  that  it 
would  prepare  the  way  for  rolling  up  a  debt  against 
the  nation  so  great,  as  to  make  the  Government  strong 
beyond  the  control  of  the  nation. 

The  doctrine  may  be  paradoxical,  that  a  great  debt 
against  a  nation  makes  its  Government  strong.  It  is, 
nevertheless,  true,  that  whilst  the  nation  is  weak  in 
proportion  to  its  debt,  its  Government  is  strong  in  that 
proportion.  It  is  not  even  the  owners  of  the  debt,  that 
constitute  the  strongest  party.  It  is  the  power,  that 
collects  the  debt — the  principal  and  interest,  or  either — 
that  is  the  strongest.  But  Government  is  this  power, 
and  therefore  its  fearful  strength,  where  the  national 
debt  is  great.  The  debt,  which  a  nation  owes,  is  a 
mortgage  on  the  whole  of  its  wealth  and  industry. 
All  the  persons  employed  in  collecting  it  are  servants 
of  the  Government,  and  all  the  power  wielded  to  col 
lect  it  is  power  of  the  Government;  as  fully  so,  as  if 
Government  were  the  creditor  of  the  nation,  as  well  as 


SPEECH  ON  THE   PACIFIC  RAILROAD. 

the  collector  of  the  debt.  Our  own  nation,  in  order  to 
fall  under  the  tyranny  of  its  Government,  as  extensively 
as  the  nations  of  Europe  have  fallen  under  theirs, 
might,  indeed,  need  to  undergo  several  other  changes ; 
but  the  principal  change  would  consist  in  its  coming 
under  as  great  a  burden  of  debt,  as  presses  upon  those 
nations. 

I  must  bring  my  remarks  to  a  close.  The  passion  of 
every  people  has  been  for  a  great  and  glorious  Govern 
ment.  Their  pride  has  been  in  their  Government,  and 
hence  their  ruin.  Would  that  the  American  people 
might  become  so  wise,  as  to  see,  that  it  is  to  the 
reproach  of  human  nature,  or  rather  of  perverted  and 
fallen  human  nature,  that  any  civil  government  is 
necessary.  Would  that,  instead  of  feeling  pride  in 
even  the  best  civil  government,  they  might  feel  shame 
in  the  necessity,  which  exists  for  any. 

Think  not,  because  I  spoke  as  I  did,  a  minute  since, 
against  the  undue  strength  of  Government,  that  I  am 
in  favor  of  a  weak  Government.  That  was  a  strength 
acquired  in  the  perverted  uses  of  Government.  I 
would  have  Government  strong — far  stronger  than  the 
world  has  ever  seen  it.  But  the  strength,  with  which  I 
would  clothe  it,  would  be  all  acquired  in  its  right  uses. 
In  a  word,  I  would  have  Government  strong  in  the 
never-failing  principle  of  justice — strong  in  the  devotion 
of  both  itself  and  its  subjects  to  that  principle.  And, 
although  I  would  not  have  it  meddle  with  the  work  of 


SPEECH  ON  THE  PACIFIC  RAILROAD.  257 

its  subjects,  I  would,  nevertheless  have  it,  like  the  gov 
ernment  of  Heaven,  continually  round  about  them. 
Its  sleepless  care  and  its  effectual  shield  should  be  ever 
over  them— over  them,  when  they  go  to  their  fields 
and  to  their  shops,  and  over  them  when  they  go  to  then- 
tables  and  to  their  beds.  I  would  have  civil  gov 
ernment  go  with  its  subjects  where  they  go,  and  lodge 
with  them  where  they  lodge. 

I  had  hoped,  that  my  countrymen  would  never  sink 
down  into  so  degrading  a  relation  to  Government,  as 
that,  which  is  sustained  by  the  people  of  other  nations, 
I  had  hoped,  that  the  wardship,  tutelage,  and  bondage 
to  Government,  which  characterize  others,  would  never 
characterize  them.  But,  perhaps,  I  shall  find,  that  I 
was  mistaken.  Certain  it  is,  that  I  shall  strongly 
suspect  that  I  was,  if  I  find  them  in  favor  of  having 
Government  build,  or  own,  this  road.  For  the  build 
ing,  or  owning,  of  this  road  by  Government  cannot  fail 
to  contribute  mightily  toward  creating  and  fixing  as 
false  and  ruinous  a  relation  between  people  and  Gov 
ernment  in  this  country,  as  exists  between  people  and 
Government  in  other  countries. 

Here,  then,  on  the  brink  of  so  great  peril,  let  us 
pause  to  survey  the  peril.  And  more  than  that,  let  us 
here  take  our  stand  against  it.  Here,  as  the  friends  of 
popular  rights  against  the  encroachments  of  Govern 
ment,  let  us  firmly  resolve,  that,  God  helping  us,  these 
rights  shall  be  fully  maintained,  and  these  encroach- 


258  SPEECH  ON  THE  PACIFIC  RAILROAD. 

ments  successfully  resisted.  Here  let  us  firmly  resolve, 
that,  God  helping  us,  Government  shall  not  build  nor 
own  this  road,  neither  absolutely  nor  conditionally, 
neither  entirely  nor  partly.  Here  let  us  firmly  resolve, 
that  Government  shall  not  pass  this  Eubicon.  And 
here  let  the  fervent  prayer  of  all  our  hearts  be,  that  the 
attempt  to  involve  Government  with  this  road  shall  be 
the  effectual  signal  to  rally  the  friends  of  popular  rights, 
the  whole  country  over,  in  defence  of  the  people  against 
the  usurpations  of  Government. 


SPEECH 


FOR  THE 


ABOLITION  OF  THE  POSTAL  SYSTEM, 


JUNE     15,    1854. 


THE  bill  and  substitute  (both  of  which  were  intro 
duced  by  Mr.  Olds,  Chairman  of  the  Committee  on  the 
Post-Office  and  Post-Koads)  being  under  consideration, 

Mr.  SMITH  presented  the  following  amendment: 

And  IQ  it  further  enacted,  That  this  act  shall  continue 
in  force  two  years  ;  and  that,  at  the  expiration  of  that 
time,  the  Post-Office  Department  shall  be  abolished, 
and  individuals  and  associations  shall  thereafter  be  as 
free  to  carry  letters,  as  to  carry  any  thing  else. 

Mr.  SMITH,  then  said— 

I  wish,  Mr.  Speaker,  to  make  an  argument  in  sup 
port  of  my  amendment.  I  have  read  the  bill,  which 
the  Chairman  of  the  Committee  on  the  Post-Office  and 


260  ABOLITION  OF  THE  POSTAL  SYSTEM. 

Post-Eoads  introduced ;  and,  also,  the  substitute,  which 
he  introduced,  and  I  am  constrained  to  say,  that  I  do 
not  like  either  of  them.  I  dislike  both  of  them — and 
I  do  so,  if  for  no  other  reason  than  that  they  both 
bear  so  much  resemblance  to  the  existing  post-office 
laws. 

The  SPEAKER.  Will  the  gentleman  from  New- York 
inform  the  Chair,  whether  he  proposes  to  amend  the 
original  bill  or  the  substitute  ? 

Mr.  SMITH.  I  have  no  choice.  Whichever  the 
Chair  shall  think  most  proper,  I  shall  be  satisfied 
with. 

A  MEMBER.    Apply  it  to  each. 

Mr.  SMITH.  Let  my  amendment  be  first  to  the 
original  bill ;  and  then,  if  it  fail  in  that  mode,  be  to  the 
substitute.  [Laughter.] 

My  first  objection  to  these  papers — for  such  I  shall 
call  the  bill  and  substitute — is,  that  they  both  propose 
to  retain  the  franking  privilege.  It  is  true,  that  the 
substitute  does  not  propose  to  retain  it  to  the  discredit 
of  the  Post-Office  Department — or,  in  other  words,  as 
a  charge  upon  that  Department ;  but,  what  is  the  same 
thing  to  the  people,  it  proposes  to  retain  it  at  the 
expense  of  the  common  Treasury. 

I  am  free  to  admit,  that  most  members  of  Congress 
have  to  write  more  letters  than  they  would  have  to, 


ABOLITION   OF  THE   POSTAL   SYSTEM.  261 

were  they  not  members  of  Congress.  The  difference 
would  not  be  great,  however,  if  the  persons,  who  write 
to  them,  were  compelled,  as  such  persons  should  be,  to 
pay  postage  on  their  letters  ;  and  this  difference  would 
be  still  less,  if  such  persons  should,  as  all  true  gentle 
men  do,  inclose  stamps  to  pay  the  postage  on  the 
answers,  in  every  case,  where  the  correspondence  is  on 
the  business  of  those,  who  originate  it.  Most  of  the 
letters,  with  which  we  are  deluged,  are  too  unimport 
ant,  and  even  frivolous,  to  have  been  written,  had 
their  writers  been  obliged  to  pay  postage  on  them. 
And  then,  as  to  the  speeches  we  send — the  country 
would  not  perish,  if  they  were  not  sent.  Perhaps, 
indeed,  it  would  not  be  essentially  less  enlightened. 
I  apprehend,  that,  in  the  flood  of  speeches,  which  we 
pour  over  the  land,  there  is  quite  as  much  of  darkness, 
as  of  light.  Of  course,  I  would  not  speak  disparagingly 
of  my  own  speeches.  [Laughter.]  Every  member 
will  so  far  provide  for  his  self-complacency,  as  to  make, 
if  not  an  express,  at  least  a  tacit  exception,  in  behalf 
of  his  own  speeches,  whenever  he  is  tempted  to  speak 
slightingly  of  the  mass  of  speeches.  [Laughter.]  But, 
I  am  willing  to  admit,  that  it  may  be  proper  to  send 
off  a  limited  number  of  our  speeches,  at  the  expense 
of  Government,  so  far  as  the  transportation  is  concern 
ed.  Hence,  I  am  willing  to  have  Government  furnish 
each  member  of  Congress  with  stamps,  during  his  term, 
to  the  amount  of,  say,  $300  or  $400.  These  stamps 


262  ABOLITION   OF  THE   POSTAL  SYSTEM. 

should  be  peculiar.  They  should  be  made  to  be  used 
by  members  of  Congress  only;  and  only  in  franking 
printed  matter.  Let  the  value  of  each  frank  be  one 
cent,  and  let  a  single  frank  be  sufficient  to  frank  two 
ounces.  The  member  of  Congress,  who  should  not 
wish  to  use  all  his  stamps,  would  take  pleasure  in  letting 
a  fellow-member  have  the  balance. 

Another  objection,  which  I  have  to  these  papers,  is 
not  that  they  propose  more  than  one  rate  of  postage — 
but  rather,  that  they  do  not  propose  more  than  two. 
Moreover,  the  higher  of  the  two  is  of  comparatively 
very  little  consequence.  For  ten  years  to  come,  forty- 
nine  fiftieths  of  the  letters  would  not  be  affected  by 
the  higher  rate.  In  other  words,  not  one  letter  in 
fifty  would  be  charged  with  the  ten  cents  rate  of  post 
age.  Then,  these  papers  are  unreasonable,  in  making 
distance  the  sole  ground  of  difference  in  the  rates  of 
postage.  Distance  is  but  one,  and  it  is  far  from  being 
the  most  important  one,  of  the  grounds  for  such  differ 
ence.  Density  and  sparseness  of  population  ;  facilities 
and  non-facilities  of  carriage ;  are  much  more  import 
ant  considerations  in  authorizing  and  measuring  such 
difference.  Hence,  then,  although  the  existing  post 
office  laws  provide  for  but  one  rate  of  postage,  and 
although  there  evidently  should  be  more  than  one, 
nevertheless  the  papers  before  us  are,  even  in  this 
respect,  hardly  an  appreciable  improvement  on  those 


.ABOLITION   OF  THE  POSTAL  SYSTEM.  263 

laws,  so  ill-grounded  and  faulty  is  the  higher  rate  of 
postage,  which  they  propose. 

To  illustrate  the  error  of  these  papers,  in  making- 
mere  distance  the  ground  of  difference,  in  rates  of  post 
age  : — they  provide,  that  a  letter  from  Boston  to  San 
Francisco  shall  be  charged  with  ten  cents ;  and  a  letter 
from  San  Francisco  to  any  post-office  in  the  region  of 
the  Eocky  Mountains  with  only  five  cents,  according 
to  one  of  the  papers,  and  with  only  three  cents,  accord 
ing  to  the  other.  But  it  may  be  worth  three  times  as 
much  to  carry  this  letter  from  San  Francisco,  as  that 
letter  to  San  Francisco. 

Both,  then,  because  this  higher  rate  of  postage  is  to 
affect  so  small  a  proportion  of  the  letters  ;  and  because 
a  rate  of  postage,  founded  on  so  insufficient  a  reason, 
must,  if  adopted,  be  very  short-lived;  and,  because, 
too,  it  seems  well-nigh  impossible,  that  it  should  be 
adopted ;  I  shall  regard  these  papers,  in  the  argument 
I  am  now  making  against  them,  as  virtually  proposing 
but  one  rate  of  postage. 

I  have  still  another  objection  to  these  papers.  It  is 
my  chief  one.  They  would  have  Government  continue 
to  be  the  mail-carrier.  But  I  would  have  Government 
separated  from  such  work,  entirely  and  forever.  I  am 
in  favor  of  breaking  up  the  Post  Office  Department.  I 
would  have  the  people  left  as  free  to  choose  their  own 
modes  of  carrying  their  letters,  as  to  choose  their  own 
modes  of  carrying  their  other  property.  Why  should 


264  ABOLITION   OF  THE   POSTAL  SYSTEM. 

Government  carry  the  letters  any  more  than  the  other 
property  of  the  people  ?  Again,  if  Government  may 
carry  the  property  of  the  people,  why  not  the  persons 
of  the  people  also  ? — why  not  passengers  as  well  as 
property  ? 

Is  it  said,  that  letters,  especially  some  of  them,  are 
very  precious  and  important,  and  that  therefore  the 
carrier  of  them  should  be  highly  trust- worthy  and 
responsible  ?  I  admit  it  all ;  and  I  hold,  that  this  is  a 
reason  why  the  people  should  not  be  confined  to  one 
carrier,  but  should  have  a  choice  of  carriers — ay,  the 
widest  range  of  selection. 

Happily  for  the  people,  they  are  not  forbidden  by 
Government  to  transmit  money  by  express.  They 
may  choose  between  the  express  and  the  mail.  And 
what  does  the  choice,  which  they  actually  make, 
prove  ?  It  proves  that  they  prefer  the  express  to  the 
mail ;  in  other  words,  that  the  express  is  a  more  safe 
and  suitable  conveyance  for  money  than  the  mail.  It 
proves,  too,  that,  in  all  probability,  the  people  would, 
were  they  not  restricted  to  the  mail,  extensively  adopt 
other  modes  of  transmitting  letters,  as  well  as  money. 
This  monopoly  of  Government  is  aggravated  by  the 
fact,  that  Government  disclaims  all  liability  for  dam 
ages,  arising  from  either  the  bad  performance,  or  non- 
performance,  of  the  work  it  has  monopolized. 

Is  it  said,  that  speed  and  punctuality  are  necessary 
in  the  transmission  of  letters  ?  They  are.  But  this, 


ABOLITION   OF   THE   POSTAL   SYSTEM.  265 

instead  of  being  an  argument  against  abolishing  the 
Post  Office  Department,  and  against  throwing  open  its 
work  to  the  freest  and  widest  competition,  is  a  very 
strong  argument  for  doing  so.  The  motive  for  attain 
ing  speed  and  punctuality,  in  the  case  of  such  compe 
tition,  must  be  unspeakably  stronger,  and  more  effect 
ual,  than  when,  as  now,  there  is  no  competition.  It 
would  be  strange,  indeed,  if,  under  the  pressure  of 
unlimited  rivalry,  a  greater  than  the  present  degree 
of  speed  and  punctuality  should  not  be  attained.  It 
would  be  strange,  indeed,  if  the  enterprise,  sharp  sight, 
and  intense  interest  of  individuals,  and  small  associa 
tions,  should  not  accomplish  the  work  with  far  greater 
speed  and  punctuality  than  characterize  it  in  the  hands 
of  Government.  It  would  be  strange,  indeed,  if  Gov 
ernment — Government,  that  is  so  corpulent,  so  un 
wieldy,  so  lazy,  so  blundering — should  be  found  to  be 
fitted  to  the  work  of  carrying  the  mail.  But,  we  are 
not  left  to  mere  theory  in  the  case.  The  actual  fact, 
that,  here  the  mail  is  several  hours,  and,  there 
several  days,  behind  the  express,  is  as  glaring  as  the 
sun. 

Is  it  said,  that  it  is  important  to  have  the  rates  of 
postage  low?  I  admit  it  is.  I  admit,  that,  as  in  the 
case  of  commerce  itself,  so  the  more  nearly  commercial 
correspondence  can  be  free,  the  better.  And  more 
eager  am  I  to  admit,  that  the  commerce  of  the  affec 
tions,  which  is  carried  on  in  letters  of  friendship  and 


2G6  ABOLITION    OF   THE   POSTAL   SYSTEM. 

love,  should  be  but  lightly  taxed.  These  admissions, 
however,  make  nothing  against  my  doctrine,  that  Gov 
ernment  is  not  fit  to  be  the  carrier  of  letters.  On  the 
contrary,  Government  must  cease  to  be  the  carrier,  ere 
we  can  have,  or,  to  speak  more  safely,  ere  we  can  be 
entitled  to  have,  cheap  postage  either  on  land  or  sea — 
either  "  ocean  penny  postage,"  (two  cents ;)  or  any 
other  demanded  reduction  of  postage.  "We  are  not 
entitled  to  cheap  postage,  at  the  expense  of  the  common 
Treasury.  There  is  not  one  good  reason,  why  the 
carrying  of  letters  should  be  a  charge  on  the  common 
Treasury — a  charge  on  the  whole  people.  There  is 
not  one  good  reason  why  they,  who  have  but  little  to 
do  with  letters  should  be  taxed  to  make  the  transmis 
sion  of  them  cheap  to  those,  who  have  much  to  do  with 
letters.  Again,  there  is  not  one  good  reason  why  they, 
whose  letters  can  be  carried  at  half  the  cost,  at  which 
the  letters  of  others  are  carried,  should  be  compelled  to 
pay  as  high  rates  of  postage,  as. others. 

The  argument  for  carrying  the  mail,  at  the  expense 
of  the  common  Treasury,  founded  on  the  fact,  that  our 
naval  and  military  operations  are  also  at  such  expense, 
is  as  superficial  and  fallacious,  as  it  is  plausible  and 
current.  It  is  absolutely  astonishing,  that  so  many 
wise  men  use  this  argument.  In  turning  mail-carrier, 
Government  goes  entirely  out  of  the  province  of  Gov 
ernment  ;  goes  out  of  it  to  perform  an  unnecessary 
service;  and  to  perform  it  for  but  a  portion  of  its  sub- 


ABOLITION   OF  THE  POSTAL  SYSTEM.  267 

jects.  On  the  other  hand,  the  preparation  and  employ 
ment  of  force  are  strictly  within  the  province  of  Gov 
ernment  ;  are  not  only  a  legitimate,  but  a  necessary 
work ;  are  for  the  protection  of  all,  and  not  a  part  only, 
of  its  subjects ;  and  are  for  that  protection  equally  in 
the  case  of  all. 

I  have,  virtually,  said,  that,  so  long  as  Government 
is  the  mail-carrier,  the  rates  of  postage  must  be  high, 
in  order,  that  they  may  cover  the  whole  cost  of  carry 
ing  the  mail.  Indeed,  the  papers  before  us  do,  in  the 
changes  which  they  propose,  admit,  that  a  self-support 
ing  mail,  if  carried  by  Government,  must  be  a  dear 
mail.  Just  here,  however,  the  question  very  properly 
arises,  whether,  if  the  transmission  of  letters  is  thrown 
open  to  the  enterprise  and  rivalry  of  individuals  and 
associations,  the  rates  of  postage  will  be  lower.  That 
they  will  be  much  lower,  in  the  case  of  the  great  ma 
jority  of  letters,  is  as  certain,  as  that  the  cost  of  the 
transmission  will,  in  that  event,  be  much  less.  Who, 
that  has  marked  the  difference  between  the  carelessness 
and  clumsiness  of  Government  on  the  one  hand,  and 
the  vigilance  and  alertness  of  individuals  and  small 
associations  on  the  other ;  between,  for  instance,  the 
slow  and  dear  process  of  building  railroads  and  canals, 
and  ships,  by  Government,  and  the  speed  and  cheap 
ness  with  which  private  enterprise  builds  them ;  can, 
for  a  moment,  doubt,  that  the  cost  of  carrying  letters, 
is  twice  as  great,  when  Government  is  the  carrier,  as  it 


268  ABOLITION   OF  THE  POSTAL  SYSTEM. 

would  be,  were  they  carried  by  individuals  and  small 
associations  ?  But  if  this  work  is  thrown  open  to  un 
limited  competition,  then,  as  all  experience,  in  like 
cases,  proves,  the  cost  of  the  work  will  regulate  the  pay 
exacted  for  it :  or,  in  other  words,  the  rates  of  postage 
on  letters  will  be  according  to  the  expense  of  carrying 
them.  It  is  safe  to  say,  that,  in  such  event,  the  rate  of 
postage  on  half  the  single  letters  would  not  exceed  one 
cent.  On  a  portion  of  the  remaining  half,  it  would  be 
two  cents :  on  a  much  smaller  portion,  two  or  three 
times  two  cents  :  and-  on  a  comparative  few,  a  part  of 
whom,  it  must  be  remembered,  are  not  reached  by  the 
present  Post-Office  accommodations,  three  or  four,  or 
ever  five  or  six  times  two  cents. 

It  is  argued,  that  the  rates  of  postage  should  be  uni 
form,  throughout  the  whole  length  and  breadth  of  the 
nation.  But,  why  should  they  be  ?  They  cannot  be, 
but  at  the  expense  of  great  and  glaring  injustice.  Two 
brothers  reside  in  New-England.  One  of  them  says  : 
"  I  will  continue  to  reside  in  New-England.  It  is  true, 
that  my  rent,  and  fuel,  and  bread,  aie  dear ;  but  my 
merchandise  is  cheap,  because  it  is  subjected  to  so  light 
a  charge  of  transportation,  and,  ere  long,  the  postage 
on  letters,  through  every  part  of  railroad-laced  New- 
England,  will  be  very  small."  The  other  brother  says : 
"  I  will  remove  to  Nebraska.  It  is  true,  that  a  home, 
in  a  new  country,  has  its  disadvantages  and  trials. 
But  land  and  fuel  are  cheap  there  ;  and  my  bread  there 


ABOLITION   OF  THE   POSTAL  SYSTEM.  269 

will  soon  be  cheap,  because  I  shall  soon  grow  it.  As 
to  merchandise,  too — -who  knows  but  Government  will, 
ere  long,  be  so  consistent  with  itself,  as  to  carry  that, 
as  well  as  letters,  all  over  the  country  ?  and  at  the  same 
charge  for  all  distances,  short  or  long  ?"  Now,  would 
it  be  right  for  Government  to  realize  this  anticipation 
of  the  Nebraska  brother,  and  to  turn  carrier  of  mer 
chandise,  as  well  as  letters  ?  and  on  such  absurd  terms, 
too?  No — all  admit,  that  it  would  be  wrong,  very 
wrong,  very  oppressive.  It  is  worth,  say,  ten  cents,  to 
carry  a  barrel  of  rice  from  Baltimore  to  Washington ; 
fifty  cents  from  Baltimore  to  Pittsburgh ;  one  dollar 
from  Baltimore  to  Chicago ;  and  three  dollars  from 
Baltimore  to  Nebraska.  Now,  it  would  be  bad  enough 
for  Government  to  monopolize  the  carrying  of  rice ; 
but,  far  worse,  to  have  only  one  price — a  mean  or 
average  price  ;  and  to  charge,  say,  one  dollar  for  carry 
ing  the  barrel  to  "Washington  and  Pittsburgh,  as  well 
as  to  Chicago,  and  only  one  dollar  for  carrying  it  to 
Nebraska.  Such  a  bringing  of  prices  to  one  level 
would  be  oppressive  to  the  people  of  Pittsburgh ;  far 
more  so  to  the  people  of  Washington ;  and  it  would  be 
doing  a  favor  to  the  people  of  Nebraska,  at  the  expense 
of  all  equity  and  justice.  And,  yet,  if  Government 
requires  the  Nebraska  brother  to  pay  no  higher  rates 
of  postage  on  Nebraska  letters  than  it  requires  the 
New-England  brother  to  pay  on  New-England  letters, 
why,  in  the  name  of  consistency,  should  it  not  make 


270  ABOLITION  OP  THE   POSTAL  SYSTEM. 

the  transportation  of  other  property  as  cheap  to  the 
Nebraska  as  to  the  New-England  brother  ?  Can  any 
tell  me,  why  ? 

.  Is  it  said,  that  the  Nebraska  brother  should  be  favor 
ed,  because  he  has  to  encounter  the  hardships  of  mak 
ing  a  home  in  the  wilderness?  I  anticipated  and 
replied  to  this  objection,  in  my  reference  to  the  advan 
tages,  as  well  as  disadvantages,  of  such  a  home ;  and  in 
my  reference  to  the  disadvantages,  as  well  as  advan 
tages,  of  a  home  in  a  long-settled  section  of  the  country. 
Moreover,  it  was  because  he  saw,  that  the  disadvan 
tages  of  his  new  home  would  be  overbalanced  by  its 
advantages',  that  he  concluded  to  emigrate.  Hence,  he 
is  not  an  object  for  partiality  to  expend  itself  upon — 
certainly,  not  for  the  partiality  of  Government.  Gov- 
ernment  is  to  be  impartial,  always,  and  with  all.  Gov 
ernment  has  no  gifts  to  make — even  to  the  most  needy : 
no  favors  to  show — even  to  the  most  deserving.  I  do 
not  deny,  that  help  is  often  due  from  the  rich  and 
densely-peopled  East  to  the  poor  and  thinly-peopled 
West.  But  it  is  not  due  from  Government.  It  is  due 
from  men  to  their  fellow-men  ;  and  is  to  be  paid,  with 
out  the  intervention  of  Government.  The  deep  sense 
of  such  obligation  has  been  already  expressed  in  the 
bestowment  of  millions  upon  schools  and  churches. 

I  would  add,  under  this  head,  that  it  is  far  from 
certain,  that,  were  the  carrying  of  the  mails  left  to 
private  enterprise,  the  people  of  our  new  settlements 


ABOLITION   OF   THE   POSTAL   SYSTEM.  271 

would  have  to  pay  higher  rates  of  postage,  than  they 
will  have  to  pay,  if  Government  continues  to  be  the 
mail-carrier.  For,  first,  if  we  are  to  continue  to  have 
so  unfit,  and  so  expensive  a  carrier  of  the  mail,  the 
rates  of  postage  must  necessarily  be  increased,  and 
greatly  increased.  Second,  the  constantly  and  rapidly 
swelling  deficit  in  the  Post-Office  Department  is  already 
so  great,  as  to  make  it  necessary  to  refuse  to  establish 
post-offices,  which  will  not,  in  all  probability,  be  self- 
supporting.  Third,  if  the  delivery  of  a  letter,  mailed 
to,  or  from,  our  most  inaccessible  settlements,  should 
cost  so  unsuitable  a  carrier,  as  Government,  twenty 
cents,  it,  nevertheless,  would  not  cost  a  suitable  carrier 
ten  cents. 

There  is  another  objection  to  my  argument  against 
uniform  rates  of  postage.  It  is,  that  such  uniformity 
operates  as  much  in  favor  of  the  densely-peopled  East, 
as  of  the  sparsely-peopled  "West ; — as  much,  for  in 
stance,  in  favor  of  the  New-England  as  the  Nebraska 
brother.  It  will  be  said,  that  if  the  Nebraska  brother 
pays  but  three  cents  on  the  letter  he  receives  from  his 
New-England  brother,  the  New-England  brother,  in 
turn,  has  to  pay  but  three  cents  on  the  letter  he  re 
ceives  from  his  Nebraska  brother.  It  is  true,  that  if 
his  only  correspondence  were  with  his  Nebraska  broth 
er,  the  New-England  brother  would  not  be  so  much 
ivronged  by  uniform  rates  of  postage.  But,  as  a  gene- 


272  ABOLITION   OF  THE   POSTAL  SYSTEM. 

ral  thing,  more  than  three  fourths  of  the  correspondence 
of  a  New-England  man  is  with  persons  of  New-Eng 
land  :  and,  hence,  the  charges  on  the  great  mass  of  his 
letters  should  be  regulated,  not  by  what  it  may  cost  to 
carry  letters  through  the  wilderness,  and  upon  the  bad 
roads  of  Nebraska,  but  upon  the  good  roads  of  culti 
vated  New-England. 

Is  it  honest  to  compel  one  man  to  pay  another  man's 
postage  ?  Is  it  honest  to  compel  one  State  to  pay 
another  State's  postage  ?  The  Northern  States  do,  to  a 
great  extent,  pay  the  postage  of  the  Southern  States. 
Slavery  is  said  to  be  the  cause  of  this  wrong.  I  am 
aware  that  slavery  is  fruitful  of  wrongs.  Perhaps,  this 
is  one  of  them.  I  will  pass  no  opinion  on  this  point, 
just  now.  I  will  leave  each  one  to  make  up  his  own 
opinion  upon  it,  in  the  light  of  the  facts  of  the  case. 
Indeed,  there  is  an  especial  reason  why  it  does  not 
become  me  to  be  finding  fault  with  slavery.  For,  if  we 
may  believe  the  newspapers,  (and  we  all  know,  that 
newspaper  is  only  another  name  for  truth,)  I  am  now 
a  pro-slavery  man.  My  going  to  bed,  as  cairn  as  usual, 
that  night,  when  the  final  vote  on  the  Nebraska  bill 
was  to  be  staved  off  by  a  ceaseless  round  of  cunningly- 
devised  yeas  and  nays,  was  fatal  to  all  my  Abolition 
fame.  My  former  honors  are  now  worn  by  others — by 
others,  who  kept  awake  for  liberty,  during  all  the  long 
and  weary  hours  of  that  memorable  night.  Surely, 


ABOLITION  OF  THE  POSTAL  SYSTEM. 


273 


surely,  if  I  have,  as  the  newspapers  say,  become  "  a 
good  national,"  and  am  on  the  eve  of  embarking  in 
"the  purchase  of  negroes,"  I  ought  to  be  chary  of  my 
words  against  slavery.  [Laughter.]  Yery  unseemly, 
very  unnatural,  would  it  be  for  a  young  convert  to 
speak  reproachfully  of  the  idol  of  his  new  faith.  But, 
to  return  from  this  digression.  I  was  saying,  that  the 
Northern  States  have  to  pay  much  of  the  postage  of 
the  Southern.  "While,  in  the  free  portion  of  the  nation, 
the  postage  exceeds  the  expenditure,  in  the  slave  por 
tion  the  expenditure  exceeds  the  postage ;  and  that,  too, 
by  the  great  sum'of  $1,311,907.* 


FREE. 

Maine 
New-Hampshire 

*  Postage  collected 
in  year  ending 
June  30,  1853. 

.      $125,194 
.  .      .         .          81,703 
.   '      .          78,638 

Expenditure 
in  year  ending 
June  30,  1853. 

$112,654 
67,310 

96,860 

Massachusetts    . 
Rhode-Island      . 
Connecticut 
New-  York 
New-Jersey 
Pennsylvania 

453,966 
.         .          47,377 
146,364 
.     1,175.516 

89,074 
.   '      .        488,308 
375.759 

294,366 
30,817 
121,365 
829,421 
109,913 
414,043 
531,392 

Michigan    . 

96,757 
137,339 

182,872 
174,351 

.         .         .        175,346 

264,223 

.  .      .   .       40,980 

55,335 

Wisconsin 

.         .          73,570 
.  -      .        123,152 

78,606 
242,043 

9,797 

52,282 

Minnesota 

3,529 

3,848 

$3.722,369  $3,661,701 


Surplus.  $GO,06S. 
U* 


274  ABOLITION  OF  THE  POSTAL  SYSTEM. 

Most  heartily,  Mr.  Chairman,  do  I  rejoice,  that  our 
post-office  ship  has  run  ashore.  As  my  amendment 
shows,  I  am  willing  to  have  it  so  far  patched  up,  that 
it  may  be  kept  at  sea  a  couple  of  years  longer,  whilst 
other  and  fit  craft  is  made  ready  to  take  its  place. 
After  that,  let  the  poor  broken  thing  be  left  to  lie  on 


Postage  collected 

Expenditure 

SLAYE. 

in  year  ending 
June  30,  1853. 

in  year  ending 
June  30,  1853. 

Delaware 

$16,310 

$16,357 

Maryland 

152,158 

239,953 

District  of  Columbia 

37,832 

33,006 

Virginia     .... 

183,472 

398,769 

North-Carolina 

60,751 

204,806 

South-Carolina 

82,985 

157,573 

Georgia      .... 

142,800 

279,441 

Florida       .... 

16,878 

45,950 

Alabama    .... 

96,091 

223,620 

Mississippi 

73,108 

151,422 

Arkansas 

25,105 

103,692 

Texas         .... 

47,164 

161,149 

Tennessee 

85,701 

134,909 

Kentucky 

112,542 

191,114 

Missouri     .... 

98,781 

188,041 

Louisiana 

128,170 

141,953 

Deficiency,  1,311,907. 


$1,359,848  $2,671,755 


UNCERTAIN  WHETHER   TO   BE   FREE   OR   SLAYE. 

New-Mexico      .        .        .        .  $517  $19,925 

Utah 955  3,633 

Nebraska  ....  237 

$1,472  $23,795 

Deficiency,  $22,323. 

Total  of  deficiency  in  Post-Office  Department  for  year  ending  June 
30.  1853,  asid'>  from  ocean  mail  service,  $1,273.562. 


ABOLITION  OF  THE  POSTAL  SYSTEM.  275 

shore — a  wreck  to  admonish  the  people,  so  long  as  it 
shall  lie  rotting  there,  of  the  folly  of  permitting  Gov 
ernment  to  be  the  carrier  of  their  letters  and  papers. 
Now  is  the  time  for  the  people  to  determine  to  take 
into  their  own  hands  their  own  work  of  carrying  their 
own  letters  and  papers.  Am  I  asked,  how— by  what 
means — the  people  can  do  this  work  ?  I  answer,  that 
is  none  of  our  business.  It  is  no  more  our  business — 
the  business  of  Government — to  make  this  inquiry, 
than  it  would  be  to  inquire,  how  the  people  could  build 
their  roads  and  canals,  and  manage  their  schools  and 
churches,  without  the  intervention  of  Government. 
Government  is  to  leave  the  people  to  do  their  own 
work,  in  their  own  way — be  that  way  the  best  or  the 
worst.  That  the  people's  way  for  carrying  their  own 
letters  and  papers  would,  however  good  or  bad,  be  far 
better  than  the  way,  in  which  meddling,  usurping 
Government  has  done  it,  there  is  not  the  least  reason 
to  doubt. 

Perhaps,  I  shall  be  told,  that  the  people  will  not  con 
sent  to  pay,  in  any  cases,  higher  rates  of  postage  than 
they  now  pay — no,  not  even  if  they  are  recompensed 
fourfold  for  it  by  less  rates  of  postage  in  the  great  ma 
jority  of  cases.  Perhaps,  I  shall  be  told,  that,  rather 
than  have  the  rates  of  postage  different  for  different 
distances,  or  for  any  other  cause,  the  people  will  prefer 
to  have  the  Government  continue  to  be  the  mail-carrier, 
and  that,  too,  even  though  the  Post-Office  Department 


276  ABOLITION   OF   THE   POSTAL   SYSTEM. 

shall  continue  to  sink  deeper  and  deeper  in  debt.  But 
the  people  are  not  so  blind  to  their  own  interests,  as 
not  to  see,  that  the  losses  of  the  Post-Office  Department 
are  the  losses  of  the  Treasury ;  and  that  the  losses  of 
the  Treasury  are  the  losses  of  themselves.  Nor  are 
the  people  so  perverse  and  suicidal  as  to  array  them 
selves,  deliberately  and  perseveringly,  against  their 
own  interests. 

Thrice  welcome  to  my  whole  heart  would  be  the 
breaking  up  of  the  Post-Office  Department!  Not 
merely,  however,  nor  even  mainly,  however,  because  I 
desire  a  reform  in  the  Government,  at  that  point.  It  is 
true,  that  I  do  deeply  desire  this  particular  reform,  for 
its  own  sake.  Nevertheless,  my  deep  desire  for  it  is 
chiefly  because  it  would  lead  the  way  to  numerous 
wise,  and  wide,  and  radical  reforms  in  the  theories  and 
practices  of  Civil  Government ;  and,  thereby,  do  much 
toward  bringing  forward  the  day,  when  Civil  Govern 
ment  shall  be  confined  to  its  sole,  legitimate  province  of 
protecting  persons  and  property. 

The  Post-Office  Department  broken  up — and  there 
would,  then,  be  no  franking  privilege.  In  this  wise, 
the  people  would  be  saved  much  more  than  a  million 
of  dollars  a  year.  According  to  some  estimates,  more 
than  even  two  millions,  a  year.  It  may  be  well  for  me 
to  say  here,  that,  even  were  the  mail  taken  out  of  the 
hands  of  Government,  I  would  still  be  willing  to  have 
Government  go  to  the  expense  of  sending  a  limited 


ABOLITION   OF  THE  POSTAL  SYSTEM.  277 

amount  of  printed  matter,  at  the  hands  of  members  of 
Congress.  Of  course,  it  could  not,  in  that  event,  be 
done  in  the  way  suggested  at  the  beginning  of  my  re 
marks.  But  what  the  franking  privilege  costs  would 
not  be  the  whole  amount,  that  the  people  would  save 
by  the  breaking  up  of  the  Post-Office  Department. 
Including  what  was  paid  to  ocean  mail  steamers,  the 
Post-Office  Department  cost  the  people  for  the  year 
ending  last  June,  nearly  $3,000,000.  The  cost  for  the 
year  ending  the  present  June,  will  exceed  the  sum  of 
$3,500,000;  and  it  is  estimated,  that  the  Post-Office 
Department  will,  in  the  year  ending  next  June,  load 
the  people  with  the  loss  of  $4,000,000.  Will  the  peo 
ple  be  patient  under  these  enormous,  and  rapidly  in 
creasing,  losses?  They  will  not  be.  And  they  will 
not  be  patient  with  the  present  Congress,  if  we  do  not, 
and  that,  too,  before  the  close  of  the  present  session, 
provide  for  the  speedy  termination  of  these  losses. 

To  protect  myself  from  misapprehension,  I  would 
disclaim  all  imputation  of  mismanagement  in  the  Post- 
Office  Department.  I  presume,  that  it  is  as  well  man 
aged,  at  the  present  time,  as  it  ever  was.  I  believe, 
that  they,  who  have  the  control  of  it,  are  upright  and 
able  men.  But  the  Post-Office  Department  is  itself 
a  wrong: — and,  therefore,  every  administration  of  it 
must,  necessarily,  be  a  wrong — because  every  adminis 
tration  of  it,  however  able  or  well-intended,  must  par- 


278  ABOLITION  OF  THE  POSTAL  SYSTEM. 

take  of  the  inherent  wrong  of  that,  which  is  adminis 
tered. 

Again,  the  Post-Office  Department  broken  up — and 
there  would  be  no  more  making  of  books  by  Govern 
ment.  In  this  wise,  too,  the  people  would  be  relieved 
of  another  great  tax.  There  is  no  danger,  that  there 
will  not  be  books  enough.  There  will  still  be  enough 
books  made,  even  if  Government  should  make  none. 
Let  Government  throw  open  the  Patent  Office,  and  the 
Coast  Survey  Office,  and  other  offices,  to  persons  who 
collect  materials  for  book-making ;  and  such  books,  as 
Government,  now,  loads  the  mail  with,  and  scatters 
among  those  who  do  not,  one  in  three,  read  them,  will 
be  published  at  half  to  three  fourths  of  the  expense,  at 
which  they  are  now  published :  and,  moreover,  they 
will  get  into  the  hands  of  those  who  will  read  them — 
for,  it  may  be  presumed,  that  they,  who  go  to  the  ex 
pense  of  buying  their  books,  will  read  them. 

But  the  saving  of  money  to  the  people  by  the  break 
ing  up  of  the  Post-Office  Department  will  be  of  little 
account,  compared  with  the  saving,  by  that  means,  of 
both  Government  and  people  from  no  small  amount  of 
corruption.  There  are  more  than  twenty-three  thous 
and  post-offices.  The  postmasters,  their  deputies  and 
clerks,  must  altogether  number  more  than  fifty  thou 
sand.  It  is,  of  course,  expected,  that  they  shall  all  wear 
the  livery  of  the  Administration ;  and,  alas,  too  large 


ABOLITION  OF  THE  POSTAL  SYSTEM.  279 

a  share  of  them  feel  themselves  irresistibly  tempted  to 
fulfil  the  expectation!  Then,  connect  with  this  patron 
age  the  negotiations  for  mail  contracts,  and  all  the 
powers  and  influences  incidental  to  the  Post-Office 
Department,  and  it  will  be  strange,  indeed — nay,  inex 
pressibly  honorable  to  human  nature — if  an  immense 
and  ever-swelling  tide  of  corruption  should  not  attend 
upon  the  organization  and  operations  of  that  Depart 
ment. 

But  it  will  be  said,  that  the  individuals  and  associa 
tions,  that  would  take  the  place  of  Government,  in 
carrying  the  mail,  would  be  as  corrupt  and  corrupting 
in  the  work,  as  Government  is.  Admit,  that  they 
would  be  as  corrupt — nevertheless  they  could  not  be  as 
corrupting.  The  corrupting  power  of  individuals  and 
associations  is  as  nothing,  compared  with  that  of  Gov 
ernment.  For,  whilst  Government  remains  pure,  it  will 
be  both  disposed  and  able  to  control  guilty  individuals 
and  associations.  But  when  Government  itself  has 
yielded  to  corruption,  the  restraining  barriers  are  bro 
ken  down,  and  all  is  in  danger  of  being  lost. 

I  must  close.  I  have  not  said  all,  that  I  intended  to 
say.  But,  as  the  remainder  of  our  session  may  be 
very  short,  so  we  must  make  our  speeches  short.  If 
this  Congress  would  do  a  better  thing  than  any  Con 
gress  has  ever  done,  let  it  declare,  that  the  Post-Office 
Department  shall,  at  the  end  of  two  years,  cease  to 
exist ;  and  shall  then  give  place  to  such  machinery,  as 


280  ABOLITION   OF   THE   POSTAL   SYSTEM. 

the  people  shall  select  and  employ ;  and  to  as  perfect 
freedom,  on  the  part  of  the  people,  to  carry  their  let 
ters  in  what  way  they  will,  as  they  now  exercise  in 
carrying  their  beef,  and  pork,  and  flour,  and  them 
selves. 

"What  I  have  said  is  in  harmony  with  the  amendment, 
which  I  sent  to  the  Clerk's  desk.  I  cannot  be  ignorant, 
that  many,  who  hear  me,  will  believe  that  my  amend 
ment  will  be  unpopular  in  some  quarters,  especially  in 
the  new  and  scantily  peopled  portions  of  the  country. 
But  I  am,  yet,  to  be  convinced,  that  it  will  be  unpopular, 
even  there.  I  am,  yet,  to  be  convinced,  that  so  just  and 
wise  a  measure,  as  the  abolition  of  the  Post-Office  De 
partment,  will  work  loss  to  any  portion  of  the  country. 
A  monopoly  in  the  hands  of  a  Democratic  Govern 
ment  ! — copied,  in  the  ignorant  infancy  of  that  Govern 
ment,  from  monarchy  and  despotism !  at  war  with  the 
whole  genius  and  framework  of  that  Government ! — tell 
it  not,  that  any  section,  or  any  worthy  interests,  of  our 
people  can  be  injured  by  the  abolition  of  a  so  entirely 
misplaced  usurpation ! 

I  will  admit,  howeVer,  for  the  sake  of  the  argument, 
that  my  proposition  is  unpopular.  Happily  for  me,  I 
have  no  popularity  to  jeopard.  I  belong,  as  I  said,  in 
this  place,  a  few  months  ago,  to  a  solitary  party ;  or,  if 
the  honorable  gentleman  from  North-Carolina  [Mr. 
Clingman]  will  permit  me  to  say  so,  to  that  dual  party, 
composed  of  himself  and  myself.  [Laughter.]  But, 


ABOLITION   OF   THE   POSTAL   SYSTEM.  281 

though.  I  have  no  popularity  to  jeopard,  nevertheless, 
many  who  hear  me  have.  I  hope,  however,  that  they 
will  not  allow  themselves  to  be  trammeled  by  it,  on 
this  occasion.  I  hope,  that  they  will  remember,  that 
justice  is  more  important  than  popularity,  and  that  he, 
who  honors  the  demands  of  justice,  will  acquire  an  in 
creasing  and  enduring  respect,  which  is  infinitely  more 
valuable  than  any  popularity,  and  especially,  than  that 
vulgar  and  mushroom  popularity,  which  is  the  poor 
pay  for  trampling  on  justice. 


SPEECH 

ON 

SUPPLYING    THE    CITY    OF    WASHINGTON 

WITH  WATER. 
JUNE      24,1854. 

MR.  CHANDLER,  of  Pennyslvania,  had  offered  an 
amendment  to  the  Civil  and  Diplomatic  Bill,  providing 
for  an  expenditure  of  five  hundred  thousand  dollars  to 
continue  the  aqueduct  for  bringing  water  into  the  City 
of  Washington.  Mr.  STEPHENS,  of  Georgia,  moved 
and  advocated  an  increase  of  one  hundred  thousand 
dollars.  Mr.  SMITH  replied  as  follows : 

The  honorable  gentleman  from  Georgia  [Mr.  Ste 
phens]  said,  "Go  on!"  I  say,  stop!  I  have  not  risen 
to  oppose  this  plan,  or  to  advocate  any  other.  I  have 
nothing  to  say  in  disparagement  of  deriving  the  water 
from  the  Potomac ;  and  nothing  to  say  in  praise  of 
deriving  it  from  Eock  Creek.  I  am  opposed  to  tho 


284  SPEECH  ON  SUPPLYING  THE  CITY 

execution  by  the  Government  of  any  plan,  whatever, 
for  supplying  this  city  with  water. 

In  my  judgment,  sir,  we  are  on  the  threshold  of  a 
vast  expenditure  of  money.  Government  had  better 
retrace  its  steps  than  go  forward.  If  it  goes  for 
ward,  it  will  find  itself  involved,  not  only  in  a  great  loss 
of  money,  but  in  difficulties  that  will  call  for  legislation, 
and  that  will  consume  much  of  the  costly  tune  of  Con 
gress.  And  that  it  will  find  its  execution  of  the  work 
the  occasion  of  no  little  corruption  to  itself  and  to 
others,  is  what  all  experience  in  such  matters  teaches  us 
to  .expect. 

This  work  can  be  done,  and  be  kept  in  repair,  by 
individual  enterprise,  at  one  half  the  expense  it  would 
be  to  Government.  Why,  then,  should  it  not  be 
intrusted  to  individual  enterprise?  Let  Government 
offer  half  a  million,  or,  if  proper,  a  million  of  dollars,  to 
the  responsible  association  that  shall  undertake  to  sup 
ply  the  city  with  water,  and  the  offer  will  be  promptly 
accepted.  But  it  is  said,  that  there  is  not  enterprise 
enough  among  the  people  of  this  city  to  get  up  such  an 
association — not  wealth  enough  to  accomplish  the  object 
of  it.  I  think  better,  however,  than  this  of  both  the 
enterprise  and  ability  of  the  people  of  Washington. 
But  if  they  either  will  not,  or  cannot,  do  the  work, 
there  are  Yankees  enough  who  will ;  and  not  only  Yan 
kees  enough,  but  people  enough  in  every  part  of  the 
country,  who  will  do  it. 


OF  WASHINGTON  WITH  WATEK.  285 

Of  course,  I  would  have  Government  require,  in 
return  for  its  grant  to  the  proposed  association,  the 
fullest  liberty  to  use  the  water  for  all  possible  govern 
mental  purposes.  And  I  would  have  Government 
prescribe  the  general  plan  of  the  work— at  least,  some 
of  its  main  features. 

I  hardly  need  say  that  I  am  willing,  more  than  will 
ing,  to  have  Government  pay  for  the  water  in  full  pro 
portion  to  the  value  of  its  buildings  and  their  precious 
contents,  and  to  the  value  of  its  various  great  interests 
here,  among  which  is  the  importance  of  preserving  the 
health  of  its  numerous  servants  collected  here.  Indeed, 
I  would  have  Government  bear  more  than  such  pro 
portion  of  the  expenses  for  the  common  welfare  of  the 
city.  It  is  the  misfortune  of  our  nation  that  its  capital 
is  in  the  midst  of  a  people  who  cannot  be  a  self-subsist 
ing  people.  To  a  great  extent  Government  must  ever 
carry  and  sustain  the  people  of  this  city. 

I  am  not  of  the  number  of  those  who  think  it  would 
have  been  unwise  to  establish  the  capital  in  one  of  our 
great  seats  of  commerce.  A  people  who  support  them 
selves  are  quite  as  virtuous  and  intelligent  and  safe 
a  people  as  are  they  who  lean  largely  upon  others  for 
their  living. 

But  it  is  said,  that  if  Government  does  this  work 
it  will  derive  a  great  income  from  it.  I  do  not  believe 
that  it  will  derive  any  income  from  it.  It  will  be  too 
much  out  of  harmony  with  its  dignity  for  Government 


286        SUPPLYING  WASHINGTON  WITH  WATER. 

to  be  peddling  water.  If  Government  does  the  work, 
the  people  of  this  city  will  never  be  taxed  for  their 
water.  The  whole  tax,  in  that  case,  will  rest  upon  the 
whole  people  of  the  country.  You  might  as  well 
expect  that  Government  should  erect  toll-gates  on  the 
bridges  it  owns  around  this  city,  and  stop  passengers 
for  their  pennies,  as  expect  that  it  will  descend  to  the 
little  business  of  selling  or  leasing  water. 

This  city  should  be  supplied  with  water,  both  abun 
dantly  and  speedily;  and,  as  I  have  said,  I  am  willing 
to  have  Government  contribute  liberally  toward  the 
expense  of  it;  but  its  contribution  must  be  in  a  way 
consistent  with  the  office  of  Government.  Not  for 
the  sake  of  doing  any  good  may  Government  exceed 
its  province.  Government  may  do  nothing  that  its 
citizens  can  do;  least  of  all  may  it  do  anything  that 
they  can  do  better  than  it  can. 

I  love  the  city  of  "Washington.  I  love  it,  because  it 
was  founded  by  the  greatest  of  all  great  names.  I  love 
it,  because  it  does  itself  wear  that  greatest  name.  I 
love  it,  because  it  is  the  capital  of  our  nation — the 
seat  of  Government  of  our  beloved  country.  I  love 
it  for  its  great  natural  beauty,  that  marks  every  part 
of  this  broad  and  magnificent  amphitheater ;  and  all 
the  more  do  I  love  it  because  this  beauty  is  heightened 
by  the  embellishments  of  art.  It  is  true  there  are  two 
plague-spots  upon  its  health — two  blemishes  and  blots 
upon  its  beauty — 

[Here  the  hammer  fell.] 


SPEECH 

ON    THE 

MEXICAN  TREATY  AND  "MONROE  DOCTRINE." 

JUNE    27,1854. 

THE  bill  to  enable  the  President  to  fulfil  the  third 
article  of  the  Treaty  between  the  United  States  and 
the  Mexican  Kepublic,  being  under  consideration, 

Mr.  SMITH  said: 

Mr.  Chairman:  Until  yesterday,  when  I  heard  the 
distinguished  gentlemen  from  Missouri  and  Virginia, 
[Mr.  Benton  and  Mr.  Bayly,]  I  had  not  intended  to 
say  one  word  on  the  subject  before  the  Committee.  I 
listened  with  great  interest  to  their  noble  speeches,  and 
was  instructed  by  them.  Nevertheless,  my  own  views 
did  not  entirely  harmonize  with  the  course  of  argu 
ment  pursued  by  either  of  those  gentlemen.  I  am 
happy,  Mr.  Chairman,  in  the  opportunity,  which  you 
have  now  kindly  afforded  me,  to  express  these  views, 


288    .MEXICAN  TREATY  AND    "  MONROE  DOCTRINE." 

in  the  light  of  which  the  vote,  which  I  am  to  give, 
will  be  judged. 

"The  papers!" — "the  papers!"  have  been,  more  or 
less,  the  burden  of  some  of  the  speeches,  which  we 
have  heard.  Now,  I  do  not  sympathize  with  this  con 
cern,  nor  join  in  this  call  for  the  papers.  I  do  not  see, 
that  we  have  any  right  to  them,  or  anything  to  do  with 
them.  Had  we  undertaken  to  impeach  the  President 
for  his  connection  with  this  treaty,  then  our  interest 
in  the  papers  respecting  it  would  be  pertinent.  But 
that  is  what  we  have  not,  as  yet,  undertaken. 

This  treaty,  when  approvingly  and  fully  acted  upon 
by  the  competent  Mexican  authorities  and  the  Presi 
dent  and  Senate  of  the  United  States,  (and,  for  the 
sake  of  the  argument,  I  will  assume,  that  it  has  already 
been  so  acted  upon,)  becomes,  by  the  admission  of  the 
Constitution  itself,  a  "supreme  law  of  the  land,"  bind 
ing  upon  our  nation,  and  capable  of  being  enforced 
against  our  nation  by  Mexico.  It  is  equally  such, 
whether  it  has  our  approbation,  or  disapprobation. 
Our  approbation  cannot  give  it  legality.  Our  disap 
probation  cannot  take  away  its  legality.  The  treaty 
is  not  a  law,  upon  condition,  that  we  assent  to  it.  It 
is,  already,  a  law — an  unconditional,  absolute  law. 
All,  that  we  have  to  do  with  the  treaty,  is  either  to  obey 
its  call  upon  us  to  vote  money  to  Mexico ;  or  to  dis 
obey  the  call,  and  incur  the  great  and  fearful  responsi 
bility  of  treaty  breakers — of  law  breakers.  For  one, 


MEXICAN  TEEATY  AND    "  MONKOE   DOCTRINE."     289 

I  hold,-  that  we  may  incur  such  responsibility,  provided 
the  amount  of  the  money  is  grossly  excessive — say 
several  times  as  much,  as  it  should  be.  Before  I  close, 
I  will  express  my  opinion  on  the  reasonableness  of  the 
amount.  Commanding  as  is  a  treaty  between  nations 
— solemn  as  is  a  "supreme  law  of  the  land,"  it  may, 
nevertheless,  be  possible,  that  it  is  our  duty  to  disobey 
this  treaty,  and  to  break  this  law.  For  we  can  suppose 
a  case,  in  which  it  would  be  right  to  disobey,  and  set  at 
naught,  the  most  imposing  and  solemn  enactment.  I 
will  suppose  an  extreme  case — since  it  is,  after  all,  an 
extreme  case,  which  best  serves  the  purpose  of  establish 
ing  the  fact,  that  there  may  be  exceptions  to  .the 
general  rule.  "What,  if  there  were  a  congressional 
statute,  which,  rivalling  the  wickedness  of  the  mem 
orable  decree  of  Herod,  requires  all  the  children  in 
this  District,  two  years  old  and  under,  to  be  slain? 
Must  the  President  obey,  and  enforce  it?  No!  All 
admit,  that,  notwithstanding  he  is  a  coordinate  branch 
of  the  law-making  power,  he  must  not  obey,  and 
enforce  it.  Commanding,  as  is  the  source  of  this  stat 
ute,  and  perfect  as  are  its  forms,  he  must  refuse  to 
honor  it.  High  and  authoritative,  as  is  the  statute, 
humanity  is  infinitely  higher  and  more  authoritative: 
and,  hence,  if  he  has  to  trample  either  one,  or  the  other, 
under  foot,  it  must  be  the  statute,  and  not  humanity. 

I  said,  that  the  treaty  calls  on  us  to  vote  money  to 
Mexico.     Now,  I  am  not  of  the  number  of  those,  who 

13 


290     MEXICAN  TKEATY  AND 

hold,  that  we  are  to  disobey  the  call,  because  the  Presi 
dent  had  not  apprised  us  of  it,  before  the  treaty  was 
concluded.  The  Constitution  does  not  require  such 
previous  notice.  Moreover,  such  previous  notice  might 
be  the  means  of  publicity,  and  thereby  of  defeat,  to  the 
negotiations.  Nor  would  I  disobey  the  call,  because  of 
the  provision  in  the  Constitution,  which  requires  all 
bills  for  raising  revenue,  to  originate  in  the  House. 
For  I  do  not  believe,  that  this  provision  was  intended 
to  restrict,  or  qualify,  the  treaty-making  power,  lodged 
by  the  Constitution  in  the  President  and  Senate.  To 
understand  our  duty,  we  must  see  what  we  get  in 
exchange  for  the  money  we  vote.  If  we  find,  that  we 
get  the  worth  of  our  money,  or  anywhere  near  the 
worth  of  our  money,  we  are  not  to  hesitate  to  vote  the 
money. 

There  are  but  two  material  things,  that  we  get. 
One  of  these  is  our  release  from  the  eleventh  article 
of  the  treaty  of  Gruadalupe  Hidalgo — the  article  which, 
although  so  lightly  spoken  of  by  the  honorable  gentle 
man  from  Missouri,  [Mr.  Benton,]  does,  nevertheless, 
make  us  liable,  in  some  sense,  and  in  some  degree, 
for  Indian  depredations  upon  the  Mexicans.  It  is  said, 
that  our  liabilities  in  this  article  are  too  indefinite  to 
create  any  obligations  upon  us.  But  I  hold,  that  the 
more  indefinite  they  are,  the  worse  they  are,  and  the 
more  eager  should  we  be  to  escape  from  them.  To 
say,  that  they  create  no  obligations  whatever  upon  us, 


MEXICAN  TREATY  AND    "MONROE  DOCTRINE."     29i 

strikes  me  as  very  extravagant.  For  one,  I  should 
be  willing,  ay  glad,  to  see  our  Government  pay  a  con 
siderable,  though  not  an  unreasonable,  sum  to  liberate 
us  from  the  obligations  of  this  article,  whatever  those 
obligations  are. 

The  other  material  thing,  that  we  get  by  this  treaty, 
is  territory.  This  territory  is  valuable  to  us,  because  it 
is  essential  to  the  best  railroad  route  from  the  southern 
portion  of  our  country  to  the  Pacific.  But  though  I 
would  have  our  Government  do  what  it  reasonably 
can  to  provide  the  South,  as  well  as  the  centre,  and 
the  North,  with  the  best  railroad  route  to  the  Pacific, 
which  the  Maker  of  the  earth  has  afforded,  I  must, 
nevertheless,  insist,  that  Mexico,  so  far  as  she  can  fur 
nish  the  ground,  should  be  glad  to  furnish  it,  without 
price,  if  others  will  build  the  roads. 

But  this  territory  is  much  more  than  we  need  for  the 
routes  of  railroads.  The  more,  however,  the  worse, 
said  the  honorable  gentleman  from  Missouri,  [Mr.  Ben- 
ton,]  and  by  a  good  story,  told  in  his  own  happy  way 
of  telling  his  good  stories,  he  illustrated  his  position, 
that  there  are  lands  so  poor,  that  to  own  them  is  to  be 
impoverished,  rather  than  enriched.  But  with  all 
deference  to  that  distinguished  gentleman,  who  is  even 
more  full  of  learning  and  experience  than  he  is  of  years, 
I  am  willing  to  admit,  that  the  more  land  we  get  from 
Mexico,  (by  righteous  means,)  the  better.  I  would, 


292     MEXICAN  TEEATY  AND    "  MONROE  DOCTRINE.7' 

that  the  treaty  gave  us  whole  provinces ;   yes,  and 
even  all  Mexico. 

Poor  Mexico  needs  to  be  brought  under  radically 
transforming  influences.  Indeed,  she  is  perishing  for 
the  lack  of  them.  It  is  for  her  life,  that  she  cease  to  be 
an  independent  nation;  and  not  only  so,  but,  also,  that 
she  become  a  part  of  our  nation.  For,  say  what  we 
will  of  its  faults  and  crimes,  (and  I  look  with  very  great 
sadness  of  heart  upon  some  of  them,)  our  nation  is  the 
mightiest  of  all  the  civilizing  and  renovating  agencies, 
that  are  at  work  in  the  world. 

And,  again,  is  there  not  some  danger,  that  Mexico,  if 
not  annexed  to  us,  will  pass  under  the  wing  of  Spain, 
or  of  some  other  European  nation?  But,  gentlemen 
will  tell  us,  that  the  "Monroe  doctrine"  is  an  effectual 
shield  from  that  danger. 

Suppose,  Mr.  Chairman,  since  we  have,  thus  inci 
dentally,  stumbled  upon  the  "Monroe  doctrine,"  that 
we  spend  a  few  minutes  upon  it,  and,  therefore,  a  few 
minutes  less  upon  the  treaty. 

I  am  well  aware,  sir,  in  what  admiration  this  doc 
trine  is  held.  It  is  glorified  in  this  House,  and  glori 
fied  throughout  the  land.  There  is  no  greater  politi 
cal  heresy  than  to  doubt  its  soundness.  It  is  com 
mended  to  us  by  the  authority  of  the  greatest  names. 
Nevertheless,  it  is  not  to  authority  that  I  would  bow, 
but  to  truth ;  and,  as  I  look  upon  the  Monroe  doctrine, 
it  is  utterly  empty  of  truth,  and  full  of  arrogance  and 


MEXICAN  TEEATY  AND 

bravado.  This  doctrine  is  very  palatable  to  our 
patriotism,  inasmuch,  as  it  arrogates  a  very  exalted 
place  and  mission  for  our  nation.  It  invests  us  with 
the  right  of  regulating  the  relations  between  the  people 
of  this  hemisphere  and  the  people  of  the  other.  It 
makes  us,  in  a  word,  dictator  of  the  whole  earth. 

This  doctrine  is  brave  and  defiant;  and  it,  therefore, 
gratifies  our  conceit  of  our  courage  and  power. 

And,  yet,  sir,  warmly  as  this  doctrine  is  cherished 
by  us,  it  seems  to  me,  that  we  should  be  the  last 
people  on  earth,  to  admit  the  truth  of  any  such  doctrine. 
This  doctrine  is  at  fatal  war  with  our  corner-stone 
doctrine,  that  every  people  is  at  liberty  to  choose  its 
own  form  of  Government.  For  us  to  set  up  "the 
Monroe  doctrine,"  is  to  turn  our  back  upon  the  Decla 
ration  of  Independence.  It  is  to  deny  ;  to  live  down; 
to  lie  down;  our  own  fundamental  principles.  For 
us  to  refuse  to  other  peoples  and  nations  the  right  to 
separate  from  each  other,  as  they  please  ;  or  unite  with 
each  other,  as  they  please ;  or  change  their  forms  of 
Government,  as  they  please ;  is  to  be  guilty  of  repeal 
ing  the  principles,  on  which  our  own  nation  delibe 
rately  founded  itself.  For  us  to  restrict  other  Govern 
ments,  as  "the  Monroe  doctrine"  would  restrict  them, 
is,  virtually,  to  ignore  and  deny  the  foundation  and 
legitimacy  of  our  own  Government. 

But,  sir,  we  are  either  ignorant  of  ourselves,  or  insin 
cere.  We  would  not  approve — nay,  we  would  not 


294     MEXICAN  TKEATY  AND    "  MONEOE  DOCTRINE." 

abide — "the  Monroe  doctrine,"  were  it  applied  to  our 
selves.  Suppose  our  nation  should,  for  any  reasons 
whatever,  wish  to  blend  itself  with  Great  Britain, 
would  it  be  restrained  from  doing  so  by  its  committal 
to  "the  Monroe  doctrine?"  Oh,  no!  And  yet,  that 
wish  would  be  directly  in  the  face  of  "  the  Monroe  doc 
trine."  Suppose  Mexico  and  Brazil,  hearing  of  this 
wish,  should  put  their  veto  upon  its  indulgence.  How 
quick  would  we  scout  the  veto,  and  bid  them  mind 
their  own  business,  whilst  we  minded  ours?  But  if 
they  have  no  right  to  forbid  our  fusion  with  Great 
Britain,  pray,  what  right  should  we  have  to  forbid  the 
proposition  of  Hayti  to  join  France,  or  Chili  to  join 
China,  or,  (most  terrific  of  all  terrific  things,  in  the 
eyes  of  an  American  filibuster!)  Cuba  to  join  England? 

The  truth  is,  that  our  rapid  progress  in  population, 
wealth,  and  power,  has  made  us  forgetful  of  the  equal 
rights  of  the  nations  of  the  earth.  We  are  disposed  to 
measure  our  rights  by  our  prosperity ;  and  to  dispa 
rage  the  rights  of  others,  in  the  degree,  that  their  pros 
perity  falls  short  of  our  own.  In  our  boundless  self- 
conceit,  our  might,  either  already  is,  or  is  very  soon  to 
be,  boundless.  And,  as  is  to  be  expected  in  such  a 
case,  we  are  already  acting  on,  if  not  in  terms  avowing, 
the  maxim,  that  might  makes  right. 

It  was  in  the  proud  and  arrogant  spirit  of  our  coun 
try — it  was  under  the  influence  of  the  extravagant  pre 
tensions,  with  which  she  is  bloated,  that  the  Squier 


MEXICAN   TKEATY  AND    "  MONEOE   DOCTRINE."     295 

treaty  was  so  much,  condemned,  and  the  Hise  treaty  so 
much  extolled,  in  the  other  wing  of  the  Capitol,  a  year 
or  two  since.  The  Squier  treaty  admitted,  that  other 
nations  of  the  earth  might  participate  with  ours  in  con 
trolling  the  ship-canal  between  the  Atlantic  and  the 
Pacific.  But  the  Hise  treaty  claimed,  that  our  nation, 
alone,  is  worthy  of  controlling  it;  that  the  nation, 
whose  office  is  sole  dictator  of  the  whole  earth,  should 
be  the  sole  keeper  of  that  great  gateway  of  all  the 
nations,  and  should  decide  when,  and  on  what  terms, 
the  ships  of  those  nations  might  pass  through  it.  It 
was,  of  course,  taken  for  granted,  that  all  the  nations 
of  the  earth  would  be  tame  enough  to  acquiesce 
promptly  in  this,  as  well  as  all  other  claims  of  our 
assumed  dictatorship. 

"  I  fix  the  chain  to  great  Olympus'  height, 
And  the  vast  world  hangs  trembling  in  my  sight," 

are  words  quite  too  swollen  for  a  nation — for  any  col 
lection  of  mere  men  to  use — however  fitted  they  may 
be  to  the  lips  of  a  god. 

"The  pride  of  thy  heart,"  saith  the  prophet,  "hath 
deceived  thee,  thou  that  dwellest  in  the  clefts  of  the 
rock,  whose  habitation  is  high ;  that  saith  in  his  heart, 
*  who  shall  bring  me'  down  to  the  ground  ?  '  Though 
thou  exalt  thyself  as  the  eagle,  and  though  thou  set 
thy  nest  among  the  stars,  thence  will  I  bring  thee  down, 
saith  the  Lord." 


296     MEXICAN  TKEATY  AND 

Is  not  such  the  pride,  that  we  are  nurturing  ? — the 
"  pride,"  may  we  not  fear,  that  u  goeth  before  destruc 
tion  ?  "—the  "  haughty  spirit  before  a  fall  ?  " 

Never  has  there  been  so  self-deceived  a  nation,  as 
our  own.  That  we  are  a  nation  for  liberty  is  among 
our  wildest  conceits.  "We  are  not  a  nation  for  liberty. 
I  refer  not,  now,  to  the  terrible  blot  of  slavery  upon  our 
country.  I  refer  to  our  pride.  No  proud  man  is  for 
liberty.  No  proud  nation  is  for  liberty.  Liberty — 
precious  boon  of  Heaven — is  meek  and  reasonable. 
She  admits,  that  she  belongs  to  all — to  the  high  and 
the  low;  the  rich  and  the  poor;  the  black  and  the 
white — and,  that  she  belongs  to  them  all  equally.  The 
liberty,  for  which  a  proud  man  contends,  is  a  spurious 
liberty ;  and  such  is  the  liberty,  for  which  a  proud 
nation  contends.  It  is  tyranny ;  for  it  invades  and 
strikes  down  equal  rights.  But  true  liberty  acknow 
ledges  and  defends  the  equal  rights  of  all  men,  and  all 
nations.  There  is  not  time  for  me  to  expatiate  upon 
the  merits  of  true  liberty.  They  will  be  known  to  al], 
who  bow  themselves,  gratefully  and  lovingly,  to  her 
claims.  There  is  not  time  for  me  to  prove,  that  it  is 
her  true  character,  which  I  have  given  to  true  liberty. 
Suffice  it  to  say,  that  all  will  see  it  to  be  such,  who  are 
so  happy,  as  to  escape  from  the  hard  dominion  of  pas 
sion  and  prejudice,  to  the  welcome  control  of  reason 
and  religion. 

If  this  nation  is  to  prosper,  it  must  be  by  adhering 


MEXICAN  TEEATY  AND    "  MONROE  DOCTRINE."     297 

to  the  great  and  precious  principles  avowed  at  its  birth. 
One  of  these  principles  is,  that  every  people  may  choose 
its  own  form  of  government,  and  vary  it,  as  it  pleases. 
We  chose  ours;  and  we  write  "hypocrite,"  with  our 
own  ringer,  upon  our  own  foreheads,  if  we  deny  to  the 
Haytiens  or  Cubans,  or  any  other  people,  the  liberty  to 
choose  theirs.  If  Cuba  proposes  to  remain  a  part  of 
Spain,  or  to  become  a  part  of  France,  or  England,  we 
cannot  condemn  the  proposition,  but  at  the  expense  of 
condemning  our  own,  deliberately  adopted  and  solemnly 
uttered,  principles. 

It  is  not  for  this  nation  to  deny  the  right  of  one  peo 
ple  to  blend  themselves  with  another  people ;  nor  the 
right  of  any  people  to  break  up  their  existing  national 
relations.  In  other  words,  it  is  not  for-  this  nation  to 
deny  the  right  either  of  annexation  or  secession.  I 
claim  the  right  of  the  British  provinces,  north  of  us, 
to  annex  themselves  to  our  nation,  if  we  are  willing  to 
receive  them  ;  and  that,  too,  whether  England  does,  or 
does  not  consent  to  it.  I  claim  the  right  of  those  pro 
vinces  and  New-England  to  form  a  nation  by  them 
selves  ;  and  that,  too,  whether  with  or  without  the 
approbation  of  the  English  and  American  Governments. 
I  hold,  that  the  Northern  States  have  the  right  to  go 
off  into  a  nation  by  themselves ;  and  the  Western 
States ;  and  the  Southern  States.  If  they  will  go,  let 
them  go  ;  and  we,  though  loving  the  Union,  and  every 
part  of  it,  and  willing  to  lose  no  part  of  it,  will  let  them 
13* 


298     MEXICAN  TREATY  AND    "  MONEOE  DOCTRINE." 

go  in  peace,  and  will  follow  them  with  our  blessing,  and 
with  our  warm  prayer,  that  they  may  return  to  us  ;  and 
with  our  firm  belief,  that  they  will  return  to  us,  after 
they  shall  have  spent  a  few  miserable  years,  or  perhaps, 
no  more  than  a  few  miserable  months,  in  their  miser 
able  experiment  of  separating  themselves  from  their 
brethren.  Of  course,  I  cannot  forget,  that  many — alas 
that  they  are  so  many! — would  prefer  following  the 
seceders  with  curses  and  guns.  Oh,  how  slow  are  men 
to  emerge  from  the  brutehood,  into  which  their  passions 
and  their  false  education  have  sunk  them !  I  say  brute- 
hood;  for  rage  and  violence  and  war  belong  to  it,  while 
love  and  gentleness  and  peace  are  the  adornments  of 
true  manhood. 

I  trust,  that  I  shall  not  be  regarded  as  holding  that 
a  single  State  in  our  Union  may  set  up  for  itself.  It 
may  not  any  more  than  a  single  county.  Such  an  im- 
perium  in  imperio  would  be  too  full  of  inconvenience 
and  objection  to  entitle  itself  to  the  approbation  of  any 
reasonable  man.  My  doctrine  of  annexation  and  seces 
sion  is  not  to  be  stretched  over  every  folly,  that  may  lay 
claim  to  countenance  from  the  doctrine. 

I  spoke  of  the  right  of  the  British  Provinces  to  annex 
themselves  to  our  nation.  I  hope,  that,  in  due  time, 
the  right  will  be  exercised ;  and  that  England  will  feel, 
that  she  cannot  justly  resist  the  exercise  of  it.  But,  I 
hope,  for  more  than  such  annexation.  I  hope  for  the 
annexation  to  us  of  every  other  part  of  North- America. 


MEXICAN  TREATY  AND 

To  bring  the  various  peoples  of  North- America  into  a 
nation  with  ourselves,  would  be  to  bring  them  under  a 
rapid  process  of  enlightenment,  civilization,  and  homo- 
geneousness  with  each  other  and  with  us.  I  trust,  tha.t 
we  shall  be  a  better  people,  by  that  day.  But  bad,  as 
we  now  are,  even  in  that  case,  few  of  our  neighbors 
would  become  worse,  and  most  of  them  would  become 
better,  by  becoming  like  us.  Were  all  North- America 
to  become  one  nation,  it  might  not  long  remain  such. 
But  the  various  nations,  into  which  it  would  divide, 
would  be  more  intelligent,  useful,  and  happy,  than  if 
they  had  never  constituted  one  nation. 

Let  Cuba  come  to  us,  if  she  wishes  to  come.  She 
belongs  to  us,  by  force  of  her  geographical  position. 
Let  her  come,  even  if  she  shall  not  previously  abolish 
her  slavery.  I  am  willing  to  risk  the  subjection  of  her 
slavery  to  a  common  fate  with  our  own.  Slavery 
must  be  a  short-lived  thing  in  this  land.  Under  our 
laws,  rightly  interpreted,  and  under  the  various  mighty 
influences  at  work  for  liberty  in  this  land,  slavery  is  to 
come  to  a  speedy  termination.  God  grant,  that  it  may 
be  a  peaceful  one ! 

I  would  not  force  Cuba  into  our  nation,  nor  pay 
$250,000,000  for  her,  nor  $200,000,000— no,  nor  even 
$100,000,000.  But  when  she  wishes  to  come,  I  would 
have  her  come  ;  and  that  I  may  be  more  clearly  under 
stood  on  this  point,  I  add,  that  I  would  not  have  her 
wait,  always,  for  the  consent  of  the  Spanish  Govern- 


300     MEXICAN   TREATY   AND    "  MONKOE   DOCTRINE." 

ment.    Now,  if  this  is  filibusteri&m,  then  all  I  have  to 
say  is  "  make  the  most  of  it ! "     [Great  laughter.] 

I  do  not  subscribe  to  the  doctrine,  that  the  people  are 
the  slaves  and  property  of  their  Government.  I  believe, 
that  Government  is  for  the  use  of  the  people,  and  not 
the  people  for  the  use  of  Government.  Moreover,  I  do 
not  acknowledge,  that  any  nation,  or  province,  or  people, 
is  amenable  to  any  other  human  Government  than  that, 
which  they  have  themselves  chosen. 

But,  to  return  from  my  filibustering  [laughter]  to  the 
treaty.  The  treaty  calls  on  us  to  vote  money  to  Mexico, 
in  exchange  for  what  we  get  from  her.  Is  the  sum  no 
greater  than  it  should  be?  Then,  I  must  cheerfully 
vote  it.  Nay,  it  may  be  even  much  greater  than  it 
should  be,  and  my  obligation  to  vote  it  remain  unbroken. 
For,  I  must  not,  for  any  slight  cause,  disobey  the  law — 
"the  supreme  law  of  the  land."  But,  if  I  believe  the 
sum  to  be  several  times  greater  than  it  should  be,  then 
it  is  better,  that  I  disobey  than  obey  the  law.  I  do 
thus  believe ;  and,  therefore,  I  elect  to  disobey  the  law. 
I  refuse  to  vote  the  required  sum.  I  am  conscious  of 
my  responsibilities  for  the  refusal.  I  confess  myself  to 
be  a  law-breaker ;  and  I  appeal  to  common  sense  and 
the  public  conscience  for  my  justification.  Start  not  at 
my  admission,  that  I  am  a  law-breaker.  Even  you, 
who  believe  with  me,  that  this  treaty  is  a  law,  would 
consent  to  break  it  on  the  same  principle,  that  I  do. 
That  is,  you  would  consent  to  break  it,  if  you  thought, 


301 


as  I  think,  that  the  sum  demanded  by  the  treaty  is 
several  times  as  great,  as  it  should  be. 

The  truth  is,  that  our  statesmen  have,  under  the 
influence  of  the  vast  resources  of  our  nation,  and  of 
the  overflowing  Treasury,  which  is  the  consequence  of 
our  tariff  system,  become  mad  on  the  subject  of  figures. 
With  them  millions  are  but  little  more  than  thousands. 
Were  our  Treasury  well-nigh  empty,  as  it  always 
should  be;  and  were  our  statesmen  to  study  the  value 
of  money,  in  the  light  of  the  toils  of  the  poor,  who 
earn  it,  these  statesmen  would  not  make  so  light  of 
immense  sums,  as  they  now  do. 

Ten  millions  for  what  this  treaty  gives  us  !  In  my 
esteem,  it  is  not  only  a  very  excessive,  but  an  outrage 
ously  excessive,  remuneration.  I  do  not  say,  that  I 
would  not  vote  five  millions.  Perhaps,  I  would,  but 
not  because  I  would  believe  five  millions  to  be  no  more 
than  a  reasonable  sum.  It  would,  in  my  judgment, 
be  much  too  large  a  sum. 

Mr.  WASHBUEJST,  of  Maine,  (interrupting.)  If  I 
understand  the  gentleman  correctly,  he  said,  a  short 
time  since,  that  he  considered  this  House  under  abso 
lute,  unquestionable  obligation  to  vote  this  money.  Or 
he  stated,  rather,  that  the  treaty  was  perfect  in  its  obli 
gation,  without  the  action  of  this  House,  that  it  was  the 
law  of  the  land,  absolute  and  complete  in  its  obligation. 
But  I  understand  the  gentleman  to  say,  now,  that  he 
will  exercise  his  discretion,  and  that  he  will  not  vote 
the  ten  millions.  Also,  that  he  will  not  call  for  the 


302     MEXICAN  TREATY  AND   "  MONROE  DOCTRINE." 

information,  because  the  President  is  not  bound  to  give 
any  information  in  relation  to  the  treaty.  I  ask  him 
whether,  if  he  should  call  upon  the  President  for  tho 
information  necessary  to  enlighten  him  upon  the  sub 
ject,  in  this  exercise  of  his  discretion,  which  he  now 
claims  the  right  to  use,  he  might  not  see  therein,  rea 
sons  why  he  should  not  vote  for  the  ten  millions  ? 

Mr.  SMITH.  I  need  no  such  enlightenment.  It  has 
been  intimated,  that  corruption  attends  the  treaty.  I 
know  not,  and,  for  present  purposes,  care  not,  whether 
this  is  so.  The  question  of  corruption  is  not  before  us, 
and  for  what  else  could  I  wish  to  see  "the  papers?  " 
The  actual  provisions  of  the  treaty  constitute  all,  tha,t 
is  legitimately  before  us  ;  and  the  only  question  for  us 
to  decide,  in  governing  our  votes  on  this  occasion,  is 
whether  $10,000,000  is  not  so  excessively  large  a  sum, 
that  we  had  better  disobey  the  treaty,  and  break  a 
"  supreme  law  of  the  land,"  than  vote  it.  As  I  have 
already  said,  I  think  it  our  duty  to  break  the  law ;  or, 
to  use  the  less  startling  phrase  of  the  day,  to  render  the 
law,  at  this  ten  million  point,  "inoperative  and  void." 
[Laughter.] 

Happily,  I  shall  not  need  to  regard  as  criminals, 
those,  whose  votes,  on  this  occasion,  shall  differ  from 
my  own.  The  difference  between  us  may  be  but  an 
honest  difference  of  judgment.  Happily,  too,  it  is  only 
money,  that  we  lose  by  voting  too  large  a  sum  to 
Mexico.  Whereas,  should  there  be  war  between  us 
and  her,  in  consequence  of  leaving  unsettled  what  this 


MEXICAN  TREATY  AND    "  MONKOE  DOCTRINE."     303 

treaty  settles,  the  loss  to  both  nations  would  be  infi 
nitely  greater  than  a  loss  of  money.  I  had  rather  we 
should  make  an  absolute  gift  of  ten  millions  to  Mexico 
than  that  we  should  fire  one  gun  at  her — and  even,  too, 
if  that  one  gun  should  hit  nobody. 


LETTER 

ANNOUNCING 

HIS  PURPOSE  TO  RESIGN  HIS  SEAT  IN  CONGRESS. 

WASHINGTON,  JUNE  27,  1854. 

To  My  Constituents  : 

My  nomination  to  Congress  alarmed  me  greatly,  be 
cause  I  believed,  that  it  would  result  in  my  election. 
To  separate  myself  from  my  large  private  business,  for 
so  long  a  time  ;  and  to  war  for  so  long  a  time,  against 
the  strong  habits  formed  in  my  deeply  secluded  life, 
seemed  to  be  well-nigh  impossible. 

My  election  having  taken  place,  I  concluded,  that  I 
must  serve  you,  during  the  first  session  of  my  term. 
Not  to  speak  of  other  reasons  for  such  service,  there 
was,  at  least,  so  much  due  to  you,  in  requital  for  youj 
generous  forgetfulness  of  party  obligations,  in  electing 
me.  I  could  not  do  less,  and,  yet,  make  a  decent 
return  for  the  respect  and  partiality  you  had  shown 

me. 

I  did  not,  until  within  a  few  weeks,  fully  decide  not 
to  return  to  Congress,  at  the  next  session.  I  could  not 


306      PURPOSE  TO  RESIGN  HIS  SEAT  IN  CONGRESS. 

know,  but  that  something  unforeseen  might  demand 
such  return.  I,  now,  feel  at  liberty  to  announce  my 
purpose  to  resign  my  seat  in  Congress,  at  the  close  of 
the  present  session.  Why  I  make  the  annunciation  so 
early  is,  that  you  may  have  ample  time  to  look  around 
you  for  my  successor. 

I  resign  my  seat  the  more  freely,  because  I  do  not 
thereby  impose  any  tax  upon  your  time.  You  will  fill 
the  vacancy,  at  the  General  Election.  Indeed,  I  should 
have  been  entirely  unwilling  to  put  you  to  the  pains 
of  holding  a  special  election. 

GERRIT  SMITH. 


SECOND   SPEECH 


ON  THE 


RICHARD    W.    MEADE    BILL. 

JULY    1,     1854. 

ME.  JONES,  of  Tennessee.  I  will  withdraw  the  mo 
tion  to  strike  out  the  enacting  clause  of  the  bill. 

Mr.  SMITH,  having  moved  to  strike  out  all  after  the 
enacting  clause,  and  supply  its  place  with  the  provision 
to  pay  $250,000  in  full  satisfaction  of  the  claim,  said, 
that  the  speech  of  the  honorable  gentleman  from  Ten 
nessee,  [Mr.  Jones,]  brought  to  his  mind  a  passage  of 
the  Bible:  "He  that  is  first  in  his  own  cause,  seemeth 
just,  but  his  neighbor  cometh  and  searcheth  him." 
Now,  I  am  the  neighbor  of  this  gentleman,  (Mr.  Jones 
and  Mr.  Smith  sit  near  each  other,)  and  I  have  come 
to  search  him.  (Laughter.) 

The  gentleman  from  Tennessee  finds  fault  with  my 
speech  on  this  subject  a  couple  of  months  ago.  I  con 
fess,  that  I  did  say  he  had  read  from  one  paper,  when 


308      SPEECH  ON  THE  KICHAED  W.   MEADE  BILL. 

it  turned  out,  that  he  had  read  from  another.  But  my 
mistake  was  of  no  consequence  to  the  argument 
Another  of  my  faults  was,  that  I  did  not  read  to  the 
end  of  the  paragraph,  of  which  I  read  a  part.  The 
closing  lines  of  the  paragraph  upset,  as  he  holds,  the 
interpretation  which  I  put  upon  the  lines  preceding 
them.  Let  us  look  into  this.  In  those  preceding  lines 
.  Mr.  Adams  scouts  the  idea,  that  the  Meade  debt  is  not 
among  the  claims  which  our  Government  had  assumed 
and  "agreed  to  compound:"  and  in  these  immediately 
following  and  closing  lines,  he  scouts  the  idea,  that  a 
certain  "order"  is  a  claim  on  our  Government. 

And  yet  the  gentleman  from  Tennessee  regards  the 
debt  and  the  order  as  identical,  the  one  with  the  other! 
and  concludes,  that,  although  Mr.  Adams  said,  in  one 
breath,  that  the  debt  is  among  the  claims  against  Gov 
ernment,  he  said  in  the  next,  that  it  is  not !  I  offer  a 
simple  explanation  to  the  gentleman's  mind.  It  is  the 
same  that  I  offered  before.  There  was  an  unliquidated 
claim  of  Meade,  and  also  a  liquidated  one.  The  former, 
I  held,  was  binding  upon  our  Government.  The  latter, 
I  admitted,  was  not.  This  is  the  distinction  insisted  on 
by  Mr.  Adams.  We  did  not  agree,  certainly  not  in 
the  treaty  of  1819,  to  pay  whatever  sum  Spain  might 
admit  she  owed  Meade,  but  the  sum  (or  a  pro  rata, 
allowance  thereon)  which  she  actually  owed  Meade. 

The  gentleman  from  Ohio  [Mr.  Giddings]  who  re 
plied  to  my  former  speech  on  this  subject,  said,  that 


SPEECH  OK  THE  KICHABD  W.   HEADE  BILL.      309 

our  Government  was  under  no  obligation  to  help 
Meade  get  from  the  Spanish  Government  the  proofs  of 
his  claim.  But  what  right  had  that  gentleman  to  say 
so,  in  the  face  of  the  treaty  obligation  of  Spain  to  fur 
nish  the  proofs  ? 

That  obligation  was  as  sacred  as  any  other  in  the 
treaty ;  and  our  Government  was  as  much  bound  to 
enforce  it,  as  to  enforce  any  other.  What,  if,  in  the 
case  of  half  of  the  claims,  the  vouchers  and  documents 
had  been  in  the  possession  of  the  Spanish  Government, 
and  their  production  had  been  refused  ?  Our  Govern 
ment  would,  surely,  have  enforced  the  provision  in  ques 
tion,  and  would  have  done  so,  before  paying  any  of 
the  claims. 

The  true  state  of  the  case  is  this  :  Our  Government 
absolutely  released  the  Spanish  Government  from  the 
Meade  claim.  It,  simultaneously,  bound  the  Spanish 
Government  to  give  up  the  proofs  of  that  claim. 
When  called  on  to  do  so,  it  refused.  And,  now,  our 
Government  sits  still,  and  says,  that  Meade  has  lost  his 
claim!  Monstrous  injustice!  And  a  deep  shame  to 
our  country  is  such  injustice ! 

Mr.  Forsyth  has  been  referred  to.  He,  like  Mr. 
Adams,  believed  with  Judge  White,  of  the  Commission^ 
that  Meade  had  "  a  well-founded  claim." 

Not  only  was  Meade  entitled  to  a  pro  rata  allowance 
from  the  five  millions,  on  his  claim,  provided  he  had 
been  able  to  establish  it,  by  means  of  the  bounden  help 


310      SPEECH  ON  THE  RICHARD  W.   MEADE  BILL. 

of  our  Government ;  but  a  strong  argument  can  be 
made  to  show,  that  our  Government  was  bound  to  pay 
Meade  the  whole  sum,  which  the  Spanish  Government 
acknowledged  to  be  due  him.  There  is  not  the  least 
reason  to  believe,  that  the  Cortes  would  have  agreed  to 
the  second  treaty,  which,  in  addition  to  what  the  first 
treaty  gave  us,  annulled  three  Spanish  grants  of  land, 
had  not  that  body  supposed,  that  our  Government 
would  pay  the  Meade  debt,  as  it  had  been  liquidated. 
The  history  of  the  transactions  makes  this  well-nigh 
certain. 

But,  if  there  are  any  technicalities,  by  which  we  may 
escape  the  payment  of  this  claim,  I  pray  that  we  may 
not  avail  ourselves  of  them.  We  all  admit,  that  Spain 
owed  a  debt  to  Meade.  I  say  not  how  much.  "We  all 
admit,  that  Spain  believed,  that  in  the  bargain  she 
made  with  us,  we  assumed  to  pay  or  compound  this 
claim.  We  all  know,  that  we  made  a  good  bargain 
out  of  Spain,  in  getting  Florida  for  five  millions  of  dol 
lars.  Can  we,  in  such  circumstances,  consent  to  turn 
over  the  Meade  claim  to  Spain  for  payment  ?  Can  we, 
in  such  circumstances,  refuse  to  pay  it  ourselves  ? 


SPEECH 


FOR  THE 


HARBOR     OF     0  S  W  E  G  0, 

JULY     12,     1854. 

THE  Kiver  and  Harbor  bill  being  under  considera 
tion,  Mr.  SMITH,  having  moved  to  amend  it  by  adding 
fifty  thousand  dollars  to  the  appropriation  for  the  har 
bor  of  Oswego,  said : 

Oswego  does  a  much  larger  custom-house  business 
than  any  other  town  in  the  nation,  where  the  Govern 
ment  has  not  authorized  the  building  of  a  custom-house. 
And,  yet,  the  harbor,  in  which  all  this  business  is  done, 
is  a  miserably  contracted  and  half-finished  one.  The 
people  of  Oswego  have  been  compelled  to  tax  them 
selves,  for  many  years,  very  heavily,  in  order  to  pre 
serve  their  harbor,  and  to  maintain,  against  the  ele 
ments,  the  cheap  and  frail  piers  built  by  Government. 
And  were  they,  now,  to  call  on  Government  for  re-pay- 


312         SPEECH  FOE  THE   HARBOR  OF  OSWEGO. 

ment,  they  would  be  as  unjustly  dealt  with  as  was 
Wilmington  day  before  yesterday,  when  the  section, 
making  like  re-payment,  was  struck  out  of  the  Cape 
Fear  Eiver  bill.  For  Government  to  draw  revenue  from 
our  harbors,  and,  yet,  to  refuse  to  keep  them  in  repair, 
and  to  compel  the  people,  who  live  where  the  harbors 
are,  to  keep  them  in  repair,  is  what  I  cannot  see  to  be 
honest.  Thus  to  benefit  the  Treasury,  or,  in  other 
words,  the  whole  nation,  at  the  expense  of  particular 
localities  and  small  communities,  is,  in  my  eye,  nothing 
short  of  downright  fraud. 

But  I  have  been  asked,  during  the  discussion  of  this 
bill,  with  what  consistency  I  can  advocate  the  improve 
ment  of  rivers  and  harbors,  at  the  hands  of  the  Federal 
Government,  seeing  that  I  have  for  years  advocated, 
both  with  my  lips  and  pen,  that  they  be  improved  by 
States  and  smaller  communities,  and  not  by  the  Federal 
Government  ?  It  is  true  that  I  would  have  such  work 
done  by  other  and  more  suitable  agents  than  the  Fede 
ral  Government.  It  has  never  been  economically  and 
well  done  by  that  Government :  and  it  never  will  be 
economically  and  well  done  by  that  Government.  It 
is  a  work  that  cannot  be  properly  performed  at  arms- 
length.  It  is  a  work  that  can  be  properly  performed 
by  those  only,  who,  to  use  another  familiar  phrase,  are 
on  the  spot.  The  Federal  Government,  because  so  great, 
is  too  unwieldy  for  such  a  work :  and,  because  it  is  so 
remote  from  the  work,  an  adequate  sense  of  responsi- 


SPEECH   FOE  THE  HAEBOE  OF  OSWEGO.        318 

bility  cannot  be  brought  home  to  it.  I  object  to  such 
work  in  the  hands  of  the  Government,  if  only  because 
such  work  tends  to  centralization,  and  to  undue  Federal 
power.  I  object  to  it,  if  only  because  it  affords  im 
mense  room  for  corrupting  both  Government  and 
people. 

Gladly  would  I  vote,  this  day,  to  have  the  Federal 
Government,  provided  it  would  surrender  all  claims  to 
revenue  from  our  harbors,  stand  entirely  aside  from  the 
whole  work  of  improving  them.  But,  just  so  long,  as 
that  Government  will  tax  us  for  using  our  own  har 
bors,  just  so  long,  I  can  do  no  less  than  insist,  that 
Government  shall  put,  and  keep,  them  in  proper  con 
dition.  I  am  no  more  inconsistent  here  than  I  am  in 
the  case  of  custom-houses.  So  long  as  Government 
shall  adhere  to  the  injustice  of  supporting  itself  by  cus 
toms  ;  and  so  long  as  the  people  shall  be  foolish  enough 
to  let  Government  do  so,  so  long  I  shall  be  in  favor  of 
having  Government  erect  safe  and  suitable  buildings 
for  custom-houses,  instead  of  having  it  lease  such  as 
are  unsafe  and  unsuitable.  Hence,  although  if  I  could 
have  my  will,  and  if  my  theories  of  Government  could 
prevail,  there  would  not  be  a  custom-house  on  the 
earth ;  I,  nevertheless,  feel  myself  to  be  guilty  of  no 
inconsistency  in  calling  upon  Government  to  erect  cus 
tom-houses.  So,  too,  in  the  case  of  rivers  and  harbors, 
whilst  Government  claims,  and  with  the  acquiescence 
of  the  people,  the  exclusive  control,  and  the  exclusive 

14 


314        SPEECH  FOE  THE  HARBOE  OF  OSWEGO. 

revenues,  of  them  ;  I  feel,  that  Government  is,  not  only 
to  be  permitted,  but  to  be  required  to  improve  them. 

I  moved  an  increase  of  $50,000.  That  sum,  together 
with  the  $21,000,  which  the  bill  provides  for,  would  be 
none  too  much  to  put  the  harbor  of  Oswego  in  such  a 
state,  as  its  very  great  and  very  rapidly  growing  busi 
ness  demands. 

I  desire  the  success  of  this  bill.  The  security  of  life 
and  property  requires  it.  Instead  of  the  total  sum 
appropriated  by  this  bill  being  too  large,  I  would  have 
Government,  another  year,  expend  a  much  larger  sum 
on  these  and  similar  objects,  providing  it  shall  not  do 
the  far  juster  and  better  thing  of  surrendering  the  work 
into  the  hands  of  the  proper  agents — the  States  and 
smaller  communities. 

I  did  not  offer  my  amendment,  with  the  view  of  its 
adoption.  Indeed,  I  am  persuaded  that  the  success  of 
the  bill  would  be  greatly  endangered  by  amending  it. 
It  is  safer  and  wiser  to  follow  the  estimates,  and  to 
walk  in  the  track  of  the  Department.  I  withdraw  my 
amendment.  " 


LETTER 

TO 

SENATOR     KAMLIN, 

ON    THE    RECIPROCITY    TREATY. 

[THE  Session,  that  Mr.  Smith  was  in  Congress,  the  Reciprocity  Treaty 
was  confirmed  by  the  Senate,  and  the  Bill  for  giving  effect  to  it  became 
a  law.  His  deep  desire  for  the  success  of  this  great  measure  led  him  to 
write  the  following  Letter,  and  to  have  a  copy  of  it  laid  on  the  desk  of 
every  Member  of  Congress.] 

HON.  H.  HAMLIN,  U.  S.  SENATE  : 

Dear  Sir:  I  learn,  with  surprise  and  regret,  that 
you  are  not  decidedly  in  favor  of  the  "  [Reciprocity 
Treaty  ;"  and  that,  possibly,  you  may  oppose  its  adop 
tion.  Believing,  as  I  do,  that  the  people  of  Maine  are 
to  benefit  more  by  the  treaty  than  an  equal  number  of 
people  in  any  other  of  the  States,  I  had  supposed,  that 
the  Senators  of  Maine  would  be  especially  favorable  to 
it.  But  I  am  informed,  that  it  is,  as  an  inhabitant  of 
Maine,  that  you  hesitate  to  support  it. 

Perhaps,  as  I  have  never  seen  the  treaty,  and  have 
no  precise  knowledge  of  its  character,  and  am  too  much 
occupied  with  various  urgent  matters  to  learn  more  of 
it  now,  I  ought  not  to  make  this  communication. 


316  LETTER  TO   SENATOR  HAMLIN. 

Nevertheless,  my  interest  in  the  treaty  is  so  deep,  that 
I  must  express  it,  although  at  the  risk  of  betraying 
great  ignorance  of  its  provisions. 

I  am  in  favor  of  free  trade  between  our  country  and 
the  British  North- American  Provinces.  I  am  in  favor 
of  it  for  the  general  reason,  that  all  parts  of  the  world 
should  obey  the  laws  of  nature,  and  enjoy  free  trade 
with  each  other.  I  am  in  favor  of  it  for  the  particular 
reason,  also,  that,  these  Provinces,  being  our  neighbors, 
restrictions  on  their  trade  with  us,  are  especially  incon 
venient  and  injurious.  If  we  must  be  strangers  to  any 
portion  of  our  fellow-men,  let  it  not  be  to  our  neigh 
bors.  JTo  multiply  ties,  and  extend  intercourse,  and 
grow  into  homogeneousness,  with  our  neighbors,  is 
especially  important.  J>  And  all  this  we  shall  not  fail  to 
do,  if  we  have  free  trade  with  them.  We  may  never 
be  one  in  name  with  our  British  neighbors.  But  free 
trade  with  them  and  its  resulting  social  connections, 
and  ever-growing  assimilations,  would  make  us  one 
with  them  in  reality.  And  if  we  are  one  with  them 
in  reality,  it  is  comparatively  unimportant,  whether  we 
shall  ever  become  one  with  them  in  name.  The  free 
trade  of  Canada  with  the  United  States,  will  be  the 
virtual  annexation  of  Canada  to  the  United  StatesT^ 
Many  suppose,  that  it  will  lead  to  its  literal  annexation. 
I  am  more  inclined  to  believe,  that  commercial  annex 
ation  will,  at  least  for  the  present  age,  supersede  the 
desire  for  political  annexation.  And  if,  in 'the  end, 
Canada  shall  become  a  part  of  this  nation,  the  greater 


ON  THE  EECIPEOCITY  TEE  AT  Y.  317 

the  likeness  between  her  people  and  ours,  the  greater 
the  prospect  of  harmony  and  prosperity,  in  such  union. 
In  this  respect,  therefore,  as  well  as  in  others,  the 
assimilating  influences  of  free  trade  constitute  an  argu 
ment  in  favor  of  our  establishing  free  trade  with  Canada. 
It  is  on  these,  its  assimilating  influences,  that  I  base 
my  opinion,  that  free  trade  will  supersede  the  present 
desire  for  annexation.  "When  -free  trade,  combined 
with  other  causes,  shall  have  reached  the  effect,  the 
world  over,  of  making  the  man  of  one  nation  like  the 
man  of  another,  the  tendency,  in  my  judgment,  will  be 
not  so  much  to  the  uniting  as  to  the  subdividing  of 
nations.  National  pride  and  jealousy  will  then  have 
abated ;  and  then  men  will  peacefully  apportion  them 
selves  into  smaller  nations,  for  the  sake  of  greater  con 
venience. 

But  it  is  said,  that  the  treaty  under  consideration 
does  not  provide  for  free  trade  in  all  property.  I  am 
aware,  that  it  does  not,  and  I  add,  that  I  am  sorry  it 
does  not.  Jr 

The  argument  for  free  trade  in  all  property  I  regard  / 
as  unanswerable.  TKevertheless,  I  do  not  claim,  that 
the  argument  for  free  trade  in  manufactures  is  as  strong 
as  the  argument  for  free  trade  in  natural  productions. 
"With  some  plausibility  may  Government  say,  that^t 
must  protect  the  labor  of  its  subjects  against  the  over 
whelming  competition  of  foreign  labor ;  and  with  more 
plausibility  it  may  say,  that  there  are  many  foreign 


318  LETTEE  TO  SENATOR  HAMLIN, 

fabrics,  which  minister  to  luxury,  and  immorality,  and 
ruin  ;  and  the  importation  of  which  should,  therefore, 
be  discouraged,  if  not,  indeed,  forbiddenj  But  what 
ever  may  be  said,  in  regard  to  the  "  many  inventions, 
which  man  hath  sought  out,"  nevertheless  to  the  free 
exchange,  among  all  nations,  of  what  God  hath  made, 
no  objections  can  be  raised  but  what  are  palpably  at 
war  with  divine  ordinations — but  what,  in  a  word,  are 
palpably  atheistic. 

The  first  and  highest  duty,  then,  of  a  nation,  in 
respect  to  the  freedom  of  trade,  is  to  admit  into  the  list 
of  free  articles  all  natural  productions.  To  perform 
this  duty  is  to  acknowledge  and  honor  the  Deity.  To 
refuse  to  perform  it,  is  glaringly  to  deny  and  dishonor 
Him.  Moreover,  to  perform  this  duty,  and  to  allow 
the  free  exchange  of  the  products  of  (rod's  hands  is  to 
open  the  way  for  performing  the  other  duty  of  allow 
ing  the  free  exchange  of  the  products  of  man's  hands. 
Now,  the  plainest  and  most  sacred  of  these  two  duties 
our  Provincial  neighbors  stand  ready  to  perform. 
They  propose  a  free  exchange  with  us  of  natural  pro 
ductions.  We  cannot  refuse  their  proposition  and  be 
innocent.  To  say,  that  we  will  not  consent  to  an 
exchange  of  natural  productions,  unless  it  be  accom 
panied  by  an  exchange  of  manufactures,  is  to  prove 
ourselves  to  be  most  unreasonable ;  as  unreasonable  as 
the  man  who  should  refuse  to  deal  with  his  neighbor 
in  wood  and  water,  unless  he  is,  also,  permitted  to  deal 


ON  THE  RECIPROCITY  TREATY.  319 

with  him  in  pins  and  penknives.  It  is,  also,  to  prove 
ourselves  to  be  most  hypocritical ;  for,  in  claiming,  that 
these  provinces  should  allow  free  trade  with  us  in  man 
ufactures,  we  must,  if  honest,  claim,  that  they  should 
allow  it  with  Great  Britain  also.  But  are  we  ourselves  j 
willing  to  have  free  trade  with  Great  Britain?  We 
are  not.  /  am ;  but  we  are  not.  Are  we  ourselves 
willing  to  defray  the  cost  of  Government  by  direct 
taxes  ?  "We  are  not.  I  am ;  but  we  are  not.  We  are  t 
hypocrites  then — palpable  hypocrites — if  we  would  lay 
upon  these  provinces  the  necessity  of  supporting  their 
Governments  by  direct  taxation,  and  yet  shrink  from 
supporting  our  own  in  the  same  way. 

Our  complaints  of  the  illiberality  of  these  Provinces 
are  very  blameworthy,  not  only  in  the  light  of  what 
I  have  already  said,  but  also  in  the  light  of  the  fact, 
that,  more  than  seven  years  ago,  they  abolished  all 
differential  duties  between  their  mother  country  and 
ourselves ;  and  placed  themselves  in  the  same  commer 
cial  relations  toward  us  both.  By  reason  of  this  gen 
erous  treatment  of  us,  and  of  our  contiguity  to  them, 
we  enjoy  the  monopoly  of  supplying  them  with  iron 
castings,  agricultural  implements,  and,  in  short,  with 
nearly  all  coarse  manufactures.  How  valuable  to  us  is 
this  abolition  of  differential  duties,  is  manifest  from  the 
fact,  that  our  trade  with  those  Provinces  has  doubled 
since  1846,  the  year  of  the  abolition ;  and  that  the 
exports  are  double  the  imports.  The  effect  of  this 


320  LETTER  TO   SENATOR   HAMLIN, 

abolition  on  the  trade  of  the  Provinces  with  Great 
Britain,  though  not  correspondent^  great,  is  still  very 
great.  This  trade  has  fallen  off  from  one  fourth  to  one 
half. 

I  referred  to  our  inconsistency  in  urging  the  Pro 
vinces  to  adopt  universal  free  trade  with  us,  and  there 
by  virtually  urging  them  to  adopt  universal  free  trade 
with  Great  Britain,  also.  I  proceed  to  inquire — what 
would  be  the  effect  upon  ourselves  of  the  success  of 
this  inconsistency  ?  In  other  words — what  would  be  the 
effect  upon  ourselves  of  free  trade  between  these  Pro 
vinces  and  Great  Britain,  whilst  the  present  restrictions 
upon  the  trade  between  ourselves  and  Great  Britain 
are  continued  ?  The  effect  would  be  a  serious  diminu 
tion  of  our  revenue,  and  a  serious  damage  to  our  man 
ufactures,  and  a  serious  damage  to  our  morals,  also : — 
as  in  that  case,  goods  to  an  immense  amount  would  be 
brought  from  Great  Britain  into  these  Provinces  for 
the  purpose  of  being  smuggled  into  the  United  States. 

On  the  one  hand,  it  is  objected  to  the  treaty,  that 
its  list  of  productions  is  not  full  enough ;  and,  on  the 
other,  that  it  is  too  full.  I  admit,  that  it  is  not  full 
enough.  Consistency  demands,  that  it  should  include 
all  natural  productions.  And  when  I  speak  here  of 
natural  productions,  I  mean  them,  not  only  as  they 
come  from  the  earth,  but,  also,  in  that  next  stage  of 
forms,  which  human  labor  gives  to  them,  for  the  pur 
pose  of  making  them  more  portable — such  as  wood  in 


ON  THE  KECIPKOCITY  TBEATY.  321 

the  board,  as  well  as  in  the  log,  and  wheat  ground,  as 
well  as  Tinground.  Iron  in  the  pig,  as  well  as  in  the 
ore,  should  be  included  in  the  treaty  ;  and  if  it  is  not, 
it  is,  probably,  because  of  the  fear  on  the  part  of  the 
Provinces  of  thereby  letting  in  Scotch  and  other  pigs, 
duty  free.  So,  too,  unrefined  sugar,  if  not  included  in 
the  treaty,  should  have  been.  But,  I  trust,  that  they, 
whose  natural  productions  are  not  included  in  it,  will, 
nevertheless,  not  condemn  the  treaty.  I  trust,  that 
they  will,  magnanimously,  allow  its  justice  in  the  main 
to  outweigh  its  particular  injustice;  its  justice  to  others 
to  outweigh  its  injustice  to  themselves.  At  the  same 
time,  however,  that  they  cannot  but  feel  themselves  to 
be  wronged  by  the  treaty  in  this  respect ;  they  will 
be  consoled  by  the  reflection,  that  the  adoption  of  it 
will  be  the  adoption  of  the  principle  of  the  free 
exchange  of  natural  productions ;  and,  therefore,  that 
the  productions,  in  which  they  are  especially  interested, 
cannot  remain,  for  a  long  time,  excepted  from  the  scope 
of  this  principle. 

It  is  held,  in  some  quarters,  that  wheat  and  flour 
should  not  be  in  the  list  of  free  articles.  But  why 
should  they  not  be?  Because  our  flour  and  wheat 
will,  as  is  alleged,  sink  in  price  under  the  free  compe 
tition  of  Canada  wheat  and  flour.  But,  were  this 
apprehended  depreciation  really  to  take  place,  never 
theless,  free  trade  in  the  productions  of  Nature  is  an 
ordination  of  Nature,  which  cannot  ho  imooentlv  vio- 


322 


lated.  But  would  there  be  such  depreciation  ?  I  see 
d.ot,  that  the  treaty  is  to  be  credited  with  such  a  bene 
ficent  operation.  Our  country  and  Canada  do  each 
grow  a  surplus  of  wheat;  and,  hence,  in  the  case  of 
each,  the  foreign  market  regulates  the  price.  The 
surplus  of  each  country  goes  to  foreign  markets ;  and 
whether  the  Canada  surplus  goes  upon  the  St.  Law 
rence,  or  across  our  country,  cannot  affect  the  price  of 
our  wheat.  The  competition  for  that  surplus  and  ours 
being  in  foreign  markets  exclusively,  must  be  the 
same,  whatever  the  route  to  them.  I  say,  that  the 
competition  is  there  only.  This  is  virtually,  if  not 
literally,  true.  For  what  if  a  little  of  the  Canada  sur 
plus  should  come  into  our  country  for  consumption, 
it  could  only  have  the  effect  to  displace  the  like  quan 
tity  of  our  surplus,  and  to  liberate  it  for  foreign  mar 
kets.  "Were  any  proof  needed,  beyond  what  is  afforded 
by  the  reason  of  the  case,  that  foreign  markets  rule 
the  price  of  the  surplus  production,  we  might  instance 
the  fact,  that,  for  eleven  twelfths  of  the  year,  wheat 
in  bond  in  the  city  of  New- York  bears  as  high  a  price, 
as  wheat,  that  is  not  in  bond.  Indeed,  it  is  sometimes 
higher,  since  the  repeal  of  duties  between  the  British 
North- American  Provinces,  for  now  it  can  go  duty  free 
from  our  ports  to  the  lower  of  those  Provinces. 

I  said,  that,  whether  the  Canada  surplus  wheat  shall 
find  its  way  to  foreign  markets  upon  the  St.  Lawrence, 
or  across  our  country,  cannot  affect  the  price  of  our 


ON   THE   RECIPROCITY   TREATY.  323 

wheat.  Nevertheless,  we  are  deeply  interested  to  have 
it  take  the  latter  route,(and  so  add  immensely  to  the 
business  of  our  canals,  and  railroads,  and  storehouses, 
and  shipping,  both  on  our  lakes  and  on  the  ocean.  It 
may  not  add  immensely  to  it,  just  now.  But  it  will 
soon.  There  is  no  assignable  limit  to  the  production 
of  wheat  in  that  best  of  all  wheat  countries,  Canada 
West. 

It  is  true,  that,  if,  in  a  year  of  famine  in  our  land, 
there  should  be  a  free  admission  of  Canada  food  into 
it,  such  free  admission  would  reduce  the  price  of  Ame 
rican  food.  But  what  right-minded  man  would  not 
have  the  price  of  it  reduced,  in  such  circumstances  ? 
With  what  right-minded  man  would  not  this  contin 
gent  benefit  of  the  treaty  be  an  argument  for  the 
treaty? 

It  is  said,  though  I  do  not  believe  truly,  that  Penn 
sylvania  would  not  have  coal  come  into  the  list  of  free 
articles.  But,  why  should  it  not  ?  Who  believes,  that 
the  Maker  of  the  coal  did  not  make  it  free  for  every 
part  of  the  world,  that  wants  it  ?  Who,  then,  can  set 
up  an  honest  argument  against  its  free  transmission  ? 
Moreover,  free  trade  in  coal  between  us  and  the  British 
Provinces  is  obviously  of  great  importance,  not  to 
those  Provinces  only,  but  to  our  nation  also :  and  much, 
therefore,  as  Pennsylvania  may  be  disposed  to  go  for 
herself,  she  should  be  still  more  disposed  to  go  for  the 
nation.  She  should  be  more  patriotic  and  benevolent 


324 


than  sectional  and  selfish ;  and,  I  trust,  that  what  she 
should  be,  she  will  be.  But,  is  Pennsylvania  to  be 
harmed  by  free  trade  in  coal  ?  She  is  not.  All  the 
British  Provinces  need  her  anthracite ;  and  Canada 
"West  would  take  from  Erie  immense  quantities  of  her 
bituminous  coal.  She,  already,  takes  much,  notwith 
standing  the  duty. 

But,  I  prefer  to  take  a  wider  view,  and  to  look  at 
the  effect  of  this  free  trade  in  coal  upon  larger  portions 
of  our  country  than  a  single  State.  The  consumption, 
in  that  part  of  our  country  east  of  the  Alleghany  ridge, 
of  the  bituminous  coal  of  the  British  Provinces,  would, 
were  it  free  of  duty,  be  very  large.  I  would  here 
remark,  that  this  coal  cannot  properly  be  regarded  as 
coming  into  competition  with  anthracite.  It  is  highly 
bituminous.  I  have  heard,  perhaps  not  correctly,  that 
the  volatile  parts  in  some  of  it  are  sixty  per  cent.  To 
illustrate  the  dissimilarity  between  this  and  anthracite 
— whilst  the  one  is  wholly  worthless  for  making  gas, 
the  other  is  so  inferior  to  it  for  steamships,  that  the 
Cunard  line,  notwithstanding  it  touches  at  Halifax, 
supplies  itself  with  anthracite. 

We  desire  to  supply  the  lower  British  Provinces 
with  wheat,  flour,  corn,  rice,  pork,  and  many  kinds  of 
merchandise.  But,  in  order  to  do  so,  the  charges  of 
transportation  must  be  very  small.  How  can  they  be 
made  so  ?  I  answer,  by  our  consenting  to  receive  from 
those  Provinces  that  great  amount  of  tonnage,  which 


ON  THE  KEdPEOCITY  TEEATY.  325 

they  will  be  able  to  f ornisli  us,  providing  we  allow 
them  to  send  us  coal,  as  well  as  such  other  coarse  com 
modities,  as  fish,  plaster,  and  grindstones.  Their  cargo 
to  us  will,  in  that  case,  pay,  or  nearly  pay,  freight,  both 
ways,  inasmuch  as  their  cargo  to  us  will  be  full,  and 
our  return  cargo  to  them  light,  and  inasmuch  as  one 
of  the  laws,  which  govern  the  carrying  of  property,  is 
that  it  is  carried  cheapest  in  that  direction,  in  which 
there  is  the  least  to  carry.  Indeed,  in  this  case,  the 
return  cargo  would  be  so  light,  as,  probably,  to  be  no 
more  than  would  be  needed  for  ballast. 

I  close  under  this  head  with  the  remark,  that  if  the 
treaty  should  have  the  effect  to  cheapen  wheat  and  coal, 
such  effect  would  be  no  argument  against  it.  As  we 
care  more  for  the  whole  human  brotherhood  than  for 
a  part  of  it ;  and  as  we  are  more  concerned  to  have 
fuel  and  food  accessible  to  the  poor  than  to  have  them 
bring  great  prices  to  their  owners,  so  the  lower  the 
prices  of  coal  and  wheat,  the  more  we  are  to  rejoice. 
I  said,  under  the  head  before  this,  that  the  law  of  free 
trade  in  natural  productions,  cannot  be  innocently 
violated.  I  add,  that  it  cannot  in  any  wide  and  just 
view  of  the  case,  be  profitably  violated.  For  every 
such  view  must  include  not  the  wheat-growers  and  the 
coal  owners  only,  but  all  other  classes  also  ;  and  who 
is  there,  that,  in  the  light  of  the  wants  and  interests 
of  the  great  whole,  does  not  see  cheap  bread  and  cheap 
coal  to  be  among  the  greatest  of  human  blessings  ? 


326  LETTER  TO  SENATOR  HAMLIN 


There  are  complaints  from  your  State,  that  the 
treaty  includes  lumber  in  the  list  of  free  articles. 
But,  surely,  this  should  not  be  complained  of.  Even 
if  it  is  so,  that  the  free  competition  of  Provincial  lumber 
would  create  loss  anywhere,  such  loss  would  fall,  rather 
on  the  comparative  handful  of  persons,  who  own  the 
lumber  lands  of  Maine,  than  on  the  mass  of  her  people. 
The  trees  of  these  owners  might  not  advance  as  fast  in 
price,  as  they  had  done.  But  the  working  of  them 
into  lumber  would,  probably,  be  as  amply  remunerated 
as  ever.  But,  again,  when  a  great  beneficent  national 
measure  is  proposed,  Maine  should  not,  and  Maine  will 
not,  shrivel  herself  up  into  a  merely  selfish  view  of 
that  measure. 

Even  if  the  treaty  were  so  liberal  and  so  just,  as 
to  provide,  that  ships,  built  in  the  Provinces,  may 
receive  our  registers,  and  have  every  right  of  ships 
built  in  our  own  country,  Maine,  although  our  great 
ship-builder,  and  having,  in  such  case,  a  new  and 
powerful  competitor,  should,  nevertheless,  not  object  to 
the  treaty.  Even  if  she  may  possibly  lose  somewhat 
by  the  provisions  of  the  treaty,  in  regard  to  lumber ; 
and  even  if  the  treaty  had  gone  so  far,  as  to  bring  her 
a  new  competitor  in  ship-building,  Maine  nevertheless 
should  remember  that,  on  account  of  her  geographical 
position,  she  is  to  be  an  especial  gainer  from  its  general 
provisions.  The  millions  of  new  customers,  that  the 
treaty  gives  her,  are  at  her  door ;  and,  in  this  respect, 


ON  THE  RECIPROCITY  TREATY.  327 

she  can  serve  them  cheaper  than  the  other  States  can. 
The  proposed  free  trade,  together  with  the  freedom  of 
the  St.  Lawrence,  would  add  immensely  to  the  business 
of  the  Montreal  and  Portland  Eailroad— immensely  to 
the  business  of  a  State,  which  is  emphatically  a  State 
of  navigators. 

I  confess,  that  if  it  would  not  endanger  the  adoption 
of  the  treaty,  I  should  be  glad  to  see  a  provision  in  it 
for  the  free  exchange  of  registers.  The  poor  objection, 
that  it  would  afford  us  ships  at  a  cheaper  rate  than  we 
can  build  them,  would  be  overruled  by  the  considera 
tion,  that  the  American  people  are  preeminently  a 
commercial  people,  and  that,  in  their  eye,  therefore, 
such  an  objection  would  constitute  the  most  winning 
argument  in  favor  of  the  treaty.  The  American  peo 
ple  prefer  cheap  ships  to  dear  ones,  even  though  all  the 
cheap  ships  were  built  in  foreign  lands,  and  all  the 
dear  ones  in  their  own  land.  They  care  more  to  have 
a  ship  navigated  by  Americans  than  to  know  where  it 
originally  came  from.  Their  concern  with  its  business 
is  far  greater  than  with  its  building.  Surely,  America 
will  not  long  continue  to  hinder  her  navigators  from 
getting  their  ships  where  they  can  best  get  them. 

But  I  pass  on  to  other  matters.  In  my  judgment, 
we  would  be  bound  to  approve  and  embrace  this  trea 
ty,  even  if  it  were  silent  in  regard  to  the  fisheries  and 
the  St,  Lawrence;  for  it  would,  even  then,  be  a  just 
and  impartial  treaty — a  benefit  to  both  parties — a 
blessed  influence  upon  the  world.  But,  providing,  as 


328  LETTER  TO  SENATOR  HAMLIN, 

it  does,  for  our  free  enjoyment  of  both  the  fisheries 
and  the  St.  Lawrence,  how  eager  should  we  be  for  its 
operation!  I  do  not  say,  that  we  should  be  eager  -to 
thank  England  for  allowing  us  this  free  enjoyment. 
She  should  long  ago — she  should  always — have  ac 
knowledged  our  right  to  it.  It  is  true,  that  we  would 
not  go  to  war  with  her,  for  the  sake  of  establishing  this 
right.  The  right,  however,  is  none  the  less  clear. 
The  right  of  our  nation  to  navigate  the  St.  Lawrence 
to  its  mouth,  grows  out  of  the  fact,  that  we  dwell  upon 
its  bank.  This  doctrine,  in  the  case  of  other  rivers, 
England  has  herself  repeatedly  urged.  Then,  as  to  the 
fisheries — they  either  belong  to  the  whole  world,  or 
there  is  no  God.  England  should  be  ashamed  of  her 
heathenish  selfishness,  in  withholding  from  the  world 
this  food,  which  the  bounty  of  Heaven  has  provided  so 
abundantly  for  the  world.  A  true  Christianity  will 
yet  bring  on  the  day  when  one  man  shall  look  upon 
another  as  a  brother — ay,  and  even  as  another  self.  It 
will  be  no  grateful  recollection  to  Englishmen,  in  that 
day,  that  Englishmen  were,  once,  so  selfish,  mean,  and 
wicked,  as  to  refuse  to  let  a  hungry  fellow-man  catch 
fish  by  their  side. 

But,  notwithstanding  our  right  to  the  fisheries  and 
to  the  St.  Lawrence  is  as  clear  as  England's,  I  shall, 
nevertheless,  rejoice  in  our  permission  to  use  them. 
For  two  reasons,  especially,  I  shall  rejoice  in  it.  First, 
England  will  never  be  disposed  to  recall  the  permis 
sion;  for  England,  along  with  the  rest  of  the  world, 


ON  THE  RECIPROCITY  TEEATY.  329 

is  becoming  more,  and  not  less,  enlightened  and  liberal. 
Second,  use  and  time  will  turn  this  permission  into 
prescription;  this  privilege  into  right ;  this  conditional 
grant  into  absolute  and  unending  enjoyment.  I  do 
not  forget,  that  Yattel  says,  that  title  to  sea-fisheries 
cannot  be  gained  by  prescription ;  nor  do  I  forget,  that 
his  reason  for  saying  so  is,  that  such  title  cannot  be 
lost  by  disuse.  Of  course,  I  am  willing  to  waive  all 
claim  to  the  possibility  of  prescription,  if  it  is  conceded 
on  the  other  hand,  that  I  do  not  need  prescription, 
because  my  title  is  perfect  already.  I  will  here 
remark,  that  it  would  be  idle  for  England  to  acknow 
ledge  the  common  right  of  all  nations  to  the  fisheries 
of  the  sea,  so  long  as  she  should  deny  to  those  nations 
that  access  to  the  shore,  which  is  essential  to  the  enjoy 
ment  of  the  fisheries.  The  simple  truth  is,  that  our 
right  to  the  fisheries  involves  our  right  to  the  shore,  to 
just  the  extent,  to  which  the  latter  right  is  needed  to 
make  the  former  right  available.  To  deny  us  such 
right  to  the  shore,  is  to  deny  our  right  to  the  fisheries. 

The  value,  to  this  nation,  of  its  free  participation  in 
the  fisheries,  would  be  great,  and  ever  increasingly 
great.  They  already  furnish  a  very  considerable  item 
in  our  food,  notwithstanding  the  restrictions  upon  our 
'use  of  them.  These  restrictions  removed,  and  our  con 
sumption  of  fish  would  be  indefinitely  extended. 

I  have  heard  it  objected  to  the  treaty,  that  it 
requires  our  Government  to  abolish  the  bounty  on 
codfish.  I  am  glad,  if  it  does  abolish  it,  or  in  any  waj 


330  LETTER  TO  SENATOR  HAMLIN, 


provide  for  its  abolition,  j  There  is  plausibility  in  the 
call  for  our  patience  under  duties  on  foreign  manu 
factures,  or,  in  other  words,  under  bounties  on  our  own 
manufactures.  There  is  plausibility  in  it,  because  the 
promise  is  made  to  us,  that,  ere  long,  our  manufactures 
will  be  well  established,  and  self-sustaining;  and  that 
then  we  shall  be  relieved  of  paying  bounties  on  themi 
But,  it  is  not  pretended,  that  the  skill  of  American  fish 
ermen  is  ever  to  outgrow  the  need  of  a  bounty.  On 
the  contrary,  if  there  is  need  of  a  bounty  now,  there 
will  be  the  same  need  of  it  a  hundred  years  hence.  It 
comes  to  this,  then,  that  the  objector  to  such  a  provi 
sion  of  the  treaty  would  have  us  go  on  forever,  pay 
ing  bounty  on  codfish  (already  several  hundred  thou 
sand  dollars  a  year) — and  all  this,  not  for  the  purpose 
of  our  getting,  either  now  or  ever,  cheaper  or  better 
codfish,  but  solely  for  the  purpose  of  having  Ameri 
cans,  instead  of  foreigners,  catch  the  codfish,  that  we 
eat. 

The  objection,  under  consideration,  is  unreasonable. 
I  add,  that  it  reflects  disgrace  upon  our  country.-  It 
does  so,  because  it  implies,  that,  with  the  fisheries  and 
all  needed  facilities  therewith  thrown  wide  open  to  us, 
we  are,  nevertheless,  to  be  distanced  in  our  fishing 
competition  with  our  neighbors.  I  had  supposed,  thatf 
the  boast  of  the  Yankees  is,  that  they  can  beat  the 
British,  in  everything.  Must  fishing  be  excepted  from 
the  boast  ? 

I  spoke  of  the  St.  Lawrence.     Our  free  use  of  that 


ON  THE  EECIPEOCITY  TEEATY.  331 

noble  river  would  be  an  invaluable  benefit  to  us. 
Together  with  its  lakes,  it  drains  an  extent  of  country, 
scarcely  less  than  that  drained  by  the  Mississippi. 
Much  of  our  craft  upon  those  lakes  is  capable  of  ocean 
navigation ;  and  during  the  five  months  in  the  year,  in 
which  it  is  locked  up  in  ice,  it  would  be  upon  the 
ocean,  could  it  get  there.  Now,  this  addition  to  the 
service  of  this  craft,  would,  of  itself,  render  very 
important  the  opening  of  the  St.  Lawrence  to  us. 

I  am  aware,  that  the  reputation  of  the  mouth  of  the 
St.  Lawrence  for  safe  navigation  is  bad.  But  it  is  such, 
only  because  it  is  navigated,  at  improper  seasons  of  the 
year.  Let  it  be  navigated  in  no  other  than  the  proper 
season ;  and  let  our  canals  and  railroads  be  allowed  to 
serve  in  its  stead,  the  remainder  of  the  year,  and  it  will 
no  longer  have  this  bad  reputation.  Not  only  is  the 
St.  Lawrence  the  shortest  route  to  England;  but  the 
fact,  that  it  is  the  coldest  route  is,  in  regard  to  much 
important  lading,  an  argument  in  its  favor,  instead  of 
an  objection  to  it.  There  is  no  assignable  limit  to  the 
productiveness  in  Indian  corn  of  our  Western  States 
and  Territories.  The  time  may  not  be  distant,  when, 
if  the  St.  Lawrence  is  made  free  to  us,  tens  of  millions 
of  bushels  of  this  grain  will  go  down  this  river  annu 
ally  for  the  European  markets.  And  I  would  here 
inquire,  why,  if  even  this  cold  route  should  not  prove 
cold  enough  to  preserve  shelled  corn,  corn  might  not 
be  taken  in  the  ear,  were  the  heavy  lading  of  lead 
and  copper  and  copper  ore  combined  with  it?  Per- 


332 


, 

°] 


haps,  however,  corn  in  the  ear  is  too  bulky  to  be  trans 
ported  far,  in  any  circumstances. 

What  interest  is  to  be  damaged  by  the  adoption  and 
operation  of  this  treaty?  Do  our  manufacturers  say, 
that  it  will  not  help  them?  But  will  it  harm  them? 
That  is  the  more  pertinent  question.  If  it  will  not 
harm  them,  then,  surely,  they  should  not  complain  of 
it.  They  should  rather  rejoice  in  the  benefit  it  will 
yield  to  other  interests.  But  it  will  help  our  manufac 
turers  also.  Its  -immediate  influence  upon  their  inter 
ests  will  be  good.  Its  prospective  better. 

Among  the  natural  productions  of  the  British  North- 
American  Provinces,  are  not  a  few,  that  our  manufac 
turers  need,  and  will  more  and  more  need.  Lumber, 
for  instance.  Our  forests,  which,  by  the  way,  it  is 
very  desirable  to  preserve  to  a  considerable  extent,  are 
rapidly  disappearing.  What  an  invaluable  advantage 
to  our  manufacturers,  if  they  shall  be  allowed  to  draw 
freely  on  the  immense  forests  of  these  Provinces? 
The  more  plentiful  is  lumber,  the  less  will  be  the  cost 
of  building  their  manufactories,  and  of  building  the 
dwellings  of  their  laborers.  Besides,  there  are  many 
manufactures,  into  which  lumber  enters  more  or  less 
largely ;  and  not  a  few  into  which  scarcely  anything 
but  lumber  does  enter.  \ 

There  is  another"  way,  in  which  the  treaty  will  help 
our  manufacturers.  The  proceeds  of  the  sales  in  our 
country  of  the  natural  productions  of  these  Provinces 
will  be  chiefly  expended  in  our  country:  and  such 


ON  THE  KECIPKOCITY  TREATY,  333 

expenditures  will  be  quite  as  much  to  the  benefit  of 
ourjiianufacturers,  as  of  our  merchants. 

I  spoke  of  the  prospective  beneficial  influence  of  the 

ity  upon  our  manufactures.  I  referred  not  only 
to  the  vast  territory,  and  to  the  rapidly  increasing  pop 
ulation  of  the  British  North- American  Provinces. 
There  was  a  still  more  important  reference,  in  my  mind. 
It  is  an  adage,  that  revolutions  do  not  go  backward. 
The  exchange  between  this  country  and  the  British 
North- American  Provinces  in  natural  productions, 
once  made  free,  will  remain  free.  And  not  only  will 
the  revolution  never  go  backward,  but  it  will  go  for 
ward.  Free  exchange  in  natural  productions  will,  as  I 
have  already  intimated,  beget  free  exchange  in  manu 
factures  and  merchandise.  A  trade  half  free  will  soon 
ripen  into  a  trade  all  free.  Half  an  acquaintance  with 
our  Provincial  neighbors  will  be  impatient  for  the  j 
other  half. 

I  will  close  my  too  long  letter.  For  several  years, 
our  British  neighbors  have  been  tendering  us  free  trade 
in  the  productions  of  nature.  But  we  have  requited 
their  great  liberality  with  great  illiberality.  Profess 
ing  to  be  the  most  progressive  of  all  nations,  we  have, 
in  this  instance,  clung,  with  the  most  obstinate  conserv 
atism,  to  a  miserable  old  order  of  things.  I  wonder, 
that  the  patience  of  our  British  neighbors  has  not  long 
ago  been  exhausted.  Let  us  tax  this  patience  no 
longer.  Let  us  rise  into  an  attitude  worthy  of  the 
enlightened  age,  in  which  we  live.  Let  us  say  to  the 


334  LETTER  TO  SENATOK  HAMLIN. 

British  Provinces,  that  we  are  ready  for  free  trade  with 
them,  and  with  Great  Britain  too,  and  with  the  whole 
world  too ; — and  not  only  in  the  productions  of  nature, 
but  in  the  productions  of  art  also.  Let  the  high  and 
honorable  position  of  commercial  America  be,  that  she 
shrinks  not  from  competition  with  any  nation,  but 
courts  the  competition  of  every  nation. 
Yery  respectfully,  yours, 

GTEEEIT  SMITH. 

WASHINGTON,  July  If,  1854. 


SPEECH 


ON 


POSTAGE      BILL. 

JULY     18,     1854 

ME.  WASHBUEN,  of  Maine,  had  moved  to  refer  to  the 
Committee  of  the  "Whole  on  the  State  of  the  Union  the 
bill  to  amend  an  act  entitled  "  An  act  to  reduce  and 
modify  the  rates  of  postage  in  the  United  States," 
passed  August  30,  1852. 

Mr.  SMITH  said : 

I  have  risen  to  reply  to  the  question  put  by  the 
honorable  gentleman  from  Virginia,  [Mr.  Smith,] 
when  this  bill  was  under  discussion,  a  few  days  ago ; 
and  when  I  had  no  opportunity  to  reply  to  it.  That 
question  was  put  to  the  opponents  of  the  bill ;  and  its 
words  were:  "Are  you  not  willing  to  have  the  Post- 
Office  Department  sustained?"  For  one,  I  answer, 
that  I  am  not. 


336  SPEECH  ON   POSTAGE  BILL. 

Government  establishes  a  Post-Office  Department; 
and  arrogates  the  exclusive  right  to  carry  our  letters. 
It  establishes  its  prices  for  the  work  ;  and  then,  if  we 
hesitate  to  pay,  it  scolds  us  with  the  inquiry:  "But 
are  you  not  willing  to  have  the  Post-Office  Depart 
ment  sustained  ?"  "We  think  it  wrong  to  be  compelled 
to  pay  these  prices — first,  because  Government  cannot 
do  the  work  economically,  and  for  reasonable  prices — 
second,  because  Government  has  no  right  to  under 
take  the  work ;  and  is  guilty  of  usurpation  in  under 
taking  it.  I  hold  that  Government  is  a  usurper, 
whenever  it  assumes  a  work  which  the  people  can  do. 

Suppose  Government  should  establish  a  "  Clothes 
Department ;"  and  should  undertake  to  clothe  all  the 
people,  young  and  old,  male  and  female ;  and  should 
claim  the  exclusive  right  to  do  so  ?  Along  with  the 
dresses  it  sends  the  bills.  The  people  grumble  at  both 
the  bills  and  the  usurpation ; — at  the  bills  because  they 
are  twice  as  great  as  would  be  the  cost,  were  the  work 
done  by  themselves ;  and  at  the  usurpation,  because  it 
is  so  flagrant.  But  Government  insultingly  replies: 
"  Are  you  not  willing  to  have  the  '  Clothes  Depart 
ment'  sustained?"  Would  this  be  borne  with?  It 
would  not : — nor  should  the  Post-Office  usurpation  and 
extravagance. 

I  ask  the  gentleman  from  Virginia,  if  he  believes 
that  Government  can  carry  our  letters  and  newspapers 
at  as  small  expense  as  the  work  can  be  done  for  by 


SPEECH   ON   POSTAGE   BILL.  337 

private  enterprise  ?  If  he  does,  why  then,  in  the  name 
of  consistency,  is  he  not  in  favor  of  our  making  Gov 
ernment  the  carrier  of  our  merchandise  and  provisions 
and  persons  ? — of  passengers  and  property  ?  But  that 
gentleman  is  a  practical  man.  He  is  not,  as  in  the 
public  esteem  I  am — a  mere  theorist.  He  knows, 
better  than  I  can  tell  him,  that  it  would  not  cost  pri 
vate  associations  one  half  as  much  to  carry  the  mail  as 
it  costs  Government. 

But,  he  may  say,  that  private  associations  would, 
nevertheless,  charge  higher  rates  of  postage  than  would 
Government.  Again,  I  would  say,  that  the  gentleman 
from  Virginia  is  a  practical  man ;  a  man,  too,  of  many 
ideas  ;  and  not  laboring  under  the  reproach,  as  does  my 
own  unhappy  reputation,  of  being  a  man  of  one  idea. 
The  gentleman  must,  therefore,  know  that  when  a 
work  is  thrown  open  to  unlimited  competition,  the 
charge  for  it  will  be  brought  down  to  the  neighborhood 
of  the  cost  of  it.  But,  the  gentleman  will  perhaps 
say,  that  if  Government  gives  up  the  Post-Office  Depart 
ment;  individuals  who  live  in  remote  and  inaccessible 
portions  of  the  country  will  not  be  able  to  get  their 
letters  and  newspapers,  save  at  great  cost.  But  pray, 
what  has  Government  to  do  with  such  a  fact  ?  Sup 
pose  a  man  should  perch  himself  on  the  top  of  the 
Rocky  Mountains,  and  should  complain  to  the  Govern 
ment,  that  it  costs  him  ten  dollars  to  get  a  letter  to  his 
mountain  home ;  and  should  call  on  Government  to 


338  SPEECH   ON   POSTAGE   BILL, 

deliver  his  letters  at  ten  cents  apiece.  "Would  Govern 
ment  be  bound  to  listen  to  Ms  call  ?  Certainly  not. 
If  he  will  receive  his  letters  under  a  ten  cents  rate  of 
postage,  let  him  come  down  from  his  eyrie,  and  live 
among  the  comforts  and  accommodations  of  civilized 
life.  Government  is  no  more  bound  to  indemnity  him 
for  the  disadvantages  of  his  home,  in  respect  to  postage, 
than  in  respect  to  other  things.  Nay,  I  insist  that 
Government  is  no  more  bound  to  carry  letters  cheap 
for  its  citizens,  than  it  is  to  make  a  poor  man  rich,  a  sick 
man  well,  or  an  old  man  young.  If  people  are  tempt 
ed,  by  the  advantages  of  it,  to  take  up  their  home  in 
the  wilderness,  let  them  bear  its  disadvantages  patient 
ly,  as  well  as  enjoy  its  advantages  gratefully. 

The  gentleman  from  Virginia  professed  his  willing 
ness  to  encourage  private  enterprise  to  come  into  com 
petition  with  the  Post-Office  Department.  Se  told  us 
that  the  bill  provides  for  a  virtual  increase  of  news 
paper  postage :  and  that,  hence,  private  enterprise  could 
sustain  an  easier  competition  with  the  Post-Office 
Department.  But  the  competition,  which  he  would 
encourage,  is  in  carrying  newspapers  only.  News 
papers,  the  price  for  carrying  which  is  but  a  few 
pennies  a  pound,  private  associations  may  carry.  But 
letters,  the  price  for  carrying  which  is  a  dollar  a 
pound,  Government  alone  shall  have  the  right  to 
carry.  Surely  the  gentleman  was  not  in  earnest. 
He  was  but  joking.  He  was  making  experiments  upon 


SPEECH  ON   POSTAGE  BILL.  889 

our  stupidity  for  the  amusement  of  himself  and  of 
others,  who  love  to  see  what  easy  dupes  we  are.  "Were 
two  gentlemen  to  sit  down  to  a  turkey ;  and  were  one 
of  them  to  tell  the  other  that  he  might  have  part  of  the 
bone — nay,  that  he  might  run  his  chance  for  even  all 
the  bone — but  that  all  the  meat  he  must  reserve  to  him 
self — the  air  of  affected  liberality,  with  which  he  would 
make  this  proposition,  would  be  very  like  that,  which 
characterized  the  gentleman's  similar  proposition. 

Had  the  gentleman  from  Virginia  been  candid  on 
this  point,  and  really  in  earnest  to  let  individual  enter 
prise  into  competition  with  the  Post-Office  Department, 
he  would  have  permitted  the  competition  to  extend  to 
the  carrying  of  letters,  as  well  as  newspapers.  Make 
the  competition  thus  comprehensive ;  and  it  would  not 
endure  long.  In  less  than  six  months  the  Government 
would  fly  from  it,  forever.  So  far  as  the  carrying  of 
letters  and  papers  is  concerned,  the  occupation  of  the 
Government  would  soon  be  gone. 

"How  long  halt  ye  between  two  opinions?"  But 
this  is  not  a  pertinent  quotation.  We  are  not  divided 
in  opinions.  "VVe  are  agreed,  that  this  work  can  be 
cheaper  done,  and,  every  way,  better  done,  by  private 
enterprise  than  by  Government.  But  most  of  us  shrink 
from  openly  favoring  so  radical  and  important  an 
innovation,  as  the  breaking  up  of  the  Post-Office 
Department.  Unless  it  be  a  person  of  a  one-man 
party  like  myself,  or  a  person  like  the  honorable  gen- 


340  SPEECH  ON  POSTAGE   BILL. 

tleman  from  North-Carolina,  [Mr.  Clingman,]  who  is 
also  of  a  one-man  party,  I  scarcely  know  any  on  this 
floor,  who  have  so  little  to  win  or  lose,  as  to  venture 
to  identify  themselves  with  this  innovation. 

But,  Mr.  Speaker,  the  people  will  ere  long,  demand 
this  innovation — this  breaking  up  of  the  Post-Office 
Department— in  tones  that  cannot  be  resisted. 

The  Post-Office  Department  is  doomed,  from  its  own 
inherent  falsity  and  folly.  It  must  sink  from  its  own 
weight,  if  not  sooner  overthrown  and  displaced  by 
a  rational  and  economical  postal  system.  It  is  a  sys 
tem,  too  directly  and  glaringly  in  the  face  of  reason, 
common  sense,  justice,  economy,  to  live  much  longer. 
But  I  will  not  consume  more  of  the  time  of  the 
House, 


S   P..  E   B'.C    H 

IN  FATOR  OP  PROHIBITING 

ALL  TRAFFIC  IN  INTOXICATING  DRINKS 

IN  THE  CITY  OP  WASHINGTON. 
JULY    22,    1854. 

[THE  motto  which  Mr.  Smith  prefixed  to  this  Speedwwhen  it  was 
first  printed,  was:  "  Government  bound  to  protect  from  the  Dramshop."] 

ME.  MAY,  of  Maryland.  I  am  instructed,  by  the 
Committee  on  the  Judiciary,  to  report  adversely  on  the 
prayer  of  the  New- York  Temperance  Alliance,  in 
reference  to  the  prohibition  of  the  sale  of  intoxicating 
liquors  in  Washington,  and  to  move,  that  the  report  be 
ordered  to  be  printed. 

Mr.  SMITH.  I  move,  that  this  report  be  recommit 
ted,  with  instructions  to  report  a  bill,  which  shall  clothe 
the  city  of  "Washington  with  express  and  ample  powers 
to  prohibit  the  sale  of  intoxicating  drinks,  in  all  places 


342  TRAFFIC  IN  INTOXICATING  DKINKS 

witliin  its  limits  ;  and  on  this  motion  I  propose  to  make 
some  remarks. 

It  so  happened,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  my  first  act  on 
this  floor,  after  taking  the  oath  of  office,  was  to  present 
the  memorial  of  the  Temperance  Alliance  of  the  city  of 
New- York.  That  memorial  prays  Congress  to  empow 
er  the  city  of  Washington  to  prohibit  the  sale  of  intoxi 
cating  drinks.  I  moved  its  reference  to  a  select  com 
mittee.  This  was  objected  to.  It  slept  upon  your 
table  from  that  day,  until  the  day  last  week  on  which 
*I  succeeded,  though  with  much  difficulty,  in  waking  it 
up.  With  no  less  difficulty  have  I  kept  it  awake, 
until  this  hour,  when  I  am  so  fortunate,  as  to  obtain 
the  floor. 

It  may  be  thought,  that  the  adverse  report  before  us 
has  proceeded  from  enmity  to  the  cause  of  temperance, 
and  it  is,  therefore,  due  from  me  to  say,  tha,t  I  know 
this  is  not  so.  The  gentlemen  of  the  Judiciary  Com 
mittee,  who  are  responsible  for  this  report,  sincerely 
desire  the  prosperity  of  the  cause  of  temperance.  For 
one,  I  cannot  blame  them  for  their  interpretation  of 
the  charter  of  this  city.  I  think  it  the  only  just  inter 
pretation.  It  is  the  same,  that  I  would  myself  have 
put  upon  it,  had  I  been  of  their  committee.  I  hold, 
that  the  liberty  to  license,  irresistibly  implies  the  lib 
erty  not  to  license;  and  that  the  word  "regulate" 
covers  the  right  to  prohibit. 

As  you  are  aware,  sir,  I  make  the  limits  of  Govern- 


13"  THE   CITY   OF   WASHINGTON.  343 

ment  very  narrow.  And,  yet,  I  find  ample  room 
between  them  for  the  "doctrine  of  my  motion.  I  admit, 
that  Government  is  not  the  custodian  of  the  people's 
morals  :  and  that  it  is  never  to  be  called  on  to  protect, 
still  less  to  promote,  the  people's  morals. 

Government,  according  to  my  theory  of  Government, 
is  not  to  do  the  work  of  the  people.     It  is,  simply,  to 
protect  the  people  in  doing  it.     Government  is  but  the 
great  watch-dog  of  the  people's  house.     It  is  ever  to 
keep  watch  outside  of  that  house :  but  it  is  never  to 
come  into  it.     It  is  never  to  mix  itself  up  with  the 
affairs  of  the  people ;  but,  whatever  relation  it  may 
have  to  any  of  those  affairs,   is  to  be  purely  external. 
All  that  Government  can  legitimately  do  for  its  people, 
is  to  protect  their  persons  and  property.     If  it  tries  to 
do  more  for  them,  it  will  but  harm,  instead  of  helping, 
them.     Moreover,  wherever  there  is  a,  people,  who, 
notwithstanding  they  are  under  the  ample  and  effectual 
shield  of  a  faithful  Government,  either  cannot,  or  will 
not,  do  their  own  work,  and  take  care  of  their  own 
interests,  both  material  and  moral,  there  is  a  people 
that  Government  cannot  save ;  there  is  a  people,  that 
must  perish. 

Were  this  the  place  for  the  usual  style  and  topics  of 
a  temperance  speech,  I  would  dwell  upon  the  horrors 
of  drunkenness.  I  would  begin  my  proofs  and  illus 
trations  of  these  horrors,  by  summoning  the  drunkard 
himself.  I  would  ask  that  unhappy  being,  in  the  Ian 


B4A  TRAFFIC   IN   INTOXICATING   DRINKS 

guage  in  which.  God  asks  him :  "  Who  hath  woe  ?  who 
hath  sorrow  ?  who  hath  contentions  ?  who  hath  bab 
bling?  who  hath  wounds  without  cause?  who  hath 
redness  of  eyes  ?"  I  would,  then,  turn  to  the  wife  of 
the  drunkard,  to  inquire  what  is  a  drunkard ;  and  to 
hear  from  her  the  answer :  "Would  that  my  husband 
were  anything — nay,  everything — but  a  drunkard!" 
And,  then,  to  the  mother  of  the  drunkard,  to  hear  her 
say  :  "  Oh,  that  my  child  had  grown  up  into  any  other 
monster  of  vice  and  wickedness  than  a  drunkard!" 
And,  then,  I  would  appeal  to  the  family,  only  one 
member  of  which  is  a  drunkard,  to  hear  that  family 
reply:  "Only  one  drunkard  in  a  family  is  enough  to 
make  the  whole  family  miserable!"  I  would,  then, 
give  opportunity  to  jails  and  penitentiaries  to  tell  me, 
that  a  very  large  proportion  of  their  inmates  are  drunk 
ards  ;  and  then  to  the  gallows,  to  tell  me,  that  nearly 
every  one  of  its  victims  is  a  drunkard.  Finally,  I 
would  go  to  the  Bible,  to  inquire  what  is  a  drunkard ; 
and  to  listen  to  its  awful  response  :  "  No  drunkard  shall 
inherit  the  kingdom  of  God." 

Were  this  the  place  for  the  usual  style  and  topics  of 
a  temperance  speech,  I  would  enlarge  on  the  fact,  that 
there  are  in  our  beloved  country  more  than  half  a  mil 
lion  of  drunkards ;  and  I  would  group  along  with  them 
their  wives,  and  children,  and  parents,  and  brothers, 
and  sisters,  to  show,  that  drunkenness  makes  millions 
of  the  American  people  miserable. 


IN  THE   CITY   OF   WASHINGTON.  345 

Were  this  the  place  for  it,  I  would  make  much,  use 
of  the  fact,  that  the  annual  expense  to  our  nation,  from 
the  vice  of  drinking  intoxicating  liquors,  largely  ex 
ceeds  one  hundred  millions  of  dollars ;  and  I  would 
add,  that,  instead  "of  doubting  whether  we  have  means 
adequate  to  the  building  of  a  railroad  to  the  Pacific,  we 
would,  were  the  American  people  to  abstain,  for  only 
two  or  three  years,  from  drinking  intoxicating  liquors, 
save  enough,  by  such  abstinence,  to  build  two  or  three 
railroads  to  the  Pacific. 

Were  this  the  place  for  it,  I  would  refer  to  the 
mighty  hindrance,  which  this  vice  puts  in  the  way  of 
education,  order,  and  every  form  of  comfort,  and  of 
pure  and  true  enjoyment.  I  would  insist,  that  intoxi 
cating  drinks  have  much  to  do  with  the  frequency  of 
national  wars,  and,  what  is  more  than  all  else,  that 
there  is  no  other  agency  so  mighty  to  block  up  the  way 
of  religion,  and  .render  it  powerless,  as  the  practice  of 
drinking  intoxicating  liquors.  There  is  no  antagonism 
more  decided  and  deadly  than  that  between  the  spirit 
of  Heaven,  which  alone  can  save  the  soul,  and  the 
spirit  of  the  bottle,  which  is  more  effective  than  any 
other  power  to  kill  it. 

Were  this  the  place  for  it,  I  would  endeavor  to 
make  it  apparent,  that  total  abstinence  from  intoxicating 
drinks  is  the  only  remedy  for  drunkenness,  and  the 
only  sure  protection  from  it.  I  would,  in  that  case, 
expose  the  fallacy  of  the  doctrine,  that  temperate  drink- 


346  TEAFFIC  IN  INTOXICATING   DRINKS 

ing  is  friendly  to  sobriety,  and  is  the  cure  and  prevent 
ive  of  drunkenness,  or  is  either. 

Temperate  drinkers  claim  great  merit  for  their  prac 
tice — great  merit  in  it  to  serve  the  cause  of  temperance. 
These  temperate  drinkers  are,  by  the  way,  a  very  self- 
complacent  class  of  persons.  They  pride  themselves  on 
being  the  in  medio  tutissimus  ibis — iho  juste  milieu — class 
of  persons ;  equally  removed,  on  the  one  hand,  from 
the  vulgarity  of  drunkenness,  and,  on  the  other,  from 
the  cold-water  fanaticism.  Nevertheless,  at  the  hazard 
of  ruffling  their  self-complacency,  I  must  tell  them,  that 
they  are  more  injurious  than  drunkards  themselves  to 
the  cause  of  temperance.  In  point  of  fact,  drunkards 
are  helps  to  the  cause  of  temperance,  instead  of  being 
obstacles  in  its  way.  Why,  our  half  million  of  drunkards 
are  our  half  million  strongest  arguments  for  the  neces 
sity  of  total  abstinence !  Indeed,  I  would,  that  no  per 
son  were  able  to  drink  intoxicating  liquors,  without 
immediately  becoming  a  drunkard.  For  who,  then, 
would 'drink  it,  any  sooner  than  he  would  drink  the 
poison,  that  always  kills,  or  jump  into  the  fire,  that 
always  burns?  It  is  because  so  many,  who  drink 
intoxicating  liquor,  escape  drunkenness,  that  so  many 
are  emboldened  to  drink  it.  I  said,  that  drunkards 
serve  the  cause  of  temperance.  I  appeal  to  mothers 
for  the  truth  of  it.  Mothers  !  when  you  would  most 
effectually  admonish  your  children  not  to  drink  intoxi 
cating  liquors,  do  you  not  point  them  to  this,  that,  and 


IN  THE   CITY   OF  WASHINGTON.  347 

the  other  drunkard?     And  so  long  as  your  children 
keep  their  eyes  on  these  beacons,  the^  take  not  one 
step  in  the  pathway,  which  leads  to  the  drunkard's 
grave  and  the  drunkard's  hell.     But  the  danger  is, 
that  they  will  avert  their  eyes  from  these  beacons,  and 
fasten  them  on  the  long  and  attractive  train  of  sober, 
respectable  temperate  'drinkers,  and  follow  them.    There 
is  not  one  youth  in  this  city,  whose  habits  are  perilled 
by  the  presence  and  influence  of  drunkards — for  the 
example  of  the  drunkard  is  too  bad  to  .be  contagious. 
On  the  contrary,  there  is  not  one  youth  in  this  city, 
whose  habits  are  not  in  peril  from  the  example  of  tem 
perate  drinkers.     Alas,  how  many  a  temperate  father 
has  made  drunkards  of  his  sons,  at  his  own  table ! — at 
his   own  table,  adorned  with  decanters  of  wine — if, 
indeed,  that  can  be  called  wine,  which  is,  so  generally, 
a  vile  mixture,  containing  little,  or  no  wine !     Alas, 
how  seductive  is  the  way  to  drunkenness  in  fashionable 
life !     And  why,  therefore,  do  we  wonder,  that  fashion 
able  life  is  filled  with  drunkards?     To  the  confiding 
and  unwary  youth,  who  is  just  entering  on  his  career 
of  liquor  drinking,  how  polite,  attractive,  and  altogeth 
er  unalarming,  are  the  drinking  usages  of  fashionable 
life!     These  usages  are  commended  by  the  brilliant 
wit  and  fascinating  song,  that  are  so  often  associated 
with  them:   and,  more  pernicious  than  all,  are  the 
smiles  of  beauty,  with  which  they  are  too  often  gar 
landed.     Surely,  it  is  not  strange,  that,  in  these  circum- 


348  TRAFFIC   IN    INTOXICATING   DRINKS 

stances,  this  youth  should  sip  a  little  wine.  Neverthe 
less,  this  little  sipping  is  the  beginning  of  his  drunk 
enness.  Surely,  it  is  not  strange,  that  what  is  so 
apparently  harmless  should  wake  no  fear  in  him. 
Nevertheless,  it  is  at  the  fountain-head  of  all  his  woe 
and 'all  his  ruin,  that  this  hopeful,  happy  youth  has, 
now,  taken  his  stand.  He,  very  soon,  learns  to 
drink  his  full  glass.  He,  very  soon,  learns  to  quaff 
his  wine,  like  a  gentleman.  "Like  a  gentleman!" 
Oh,  what  variety  of  ruin  is  covered  over  by  this  win 
ning  phrase  !  These,  however,  are  but  the  first  steps 
in  the  way  of  drunkenness,  which  our  tempted  youth 
has  taken.  His  drunkenness  is,  as  yet,  but  the  little 
rill,  which  meanders  through  pleasant  fields  and  flow 
ery  gardens.  By  and  by,  he  drinks  several  glasses  at 
his  dinner ;  and,  a  little  way  further  on,  he  likes  bran 
dy,  as  well  as  wine.  That  rill,  of  which  we  spoke,  has 
now  become  a  river,  that  is  bearing  him  to  his  ruin : — 
so  gently,  however,  that  he  is  scarcely  sensible  of  the 
motion.  Nevertheless,  he  is  still  numbered  with  tem 
perate  drinkers.  He  is  still  safe  in  his  own  eyes,  and 
in  the  eyes  of  others.  But  time  passes  on.  His  appe 
tite  grows  every  year,  and  every  month,  and  every 
day.  His  potations  become  stronger  and  deeper,  and 
more  frequent.  All  now  see,  that  he  is  a  drunkard. 
The  gentle  river  is  swollen  into  a  raging  torrent,  that 
is  hurrying  its  freight — its  still  precious,  though  tern- 


IN  THE   CITY   OF  WASHINGTON.  349 

porally  and  eternally  ruined  freight— into  the  abyss, 
from  which  there  is  no  return. 

Such  is  the  end  of  this  youth,  whom  we  chose  as 
the  type  of  innumerable  millions.  How  easily  he 
might  have  been  saved  from  all  these  transformations 
and  all  this  ruin  of  the  Circean  cup,  had  a  friendly 
hand  led  him,  whilst  yet  he  could  be  led,  to  the 
immovable  rook  of  total  abstinence  I  There,  and  there 
only,  he  would  have  been  safe  from  all  the  woes,  which 
threaten  every  liquor-drinker.  So  long,  as  his  feet 
remained  planted  upon  that  rock,  he  might  have 
exclaimed :  "  A  thousand  shall  fall  at  my  side  and  ten 
thousand  at  my  right  hand ;  but  it  shall  not  come  nigh 
me.  I  am  safe." 

But  some,  who   hear  me,  may  be  ready  to   ask : 
"  What  has  Congress  to  do  with  all  this,  which  I  have 
been  saying?"     "We  will  pass  on,  then,  without  any 
further  delay,  to  a  question,  with  which  Congress  cer 
tainly  has  to  do.     This  question  is  not,  whether  Govern 
ment  may  undertake  to  promote  the  cause  of  temper- 
ance_for  I  have,  virtually,  admitted  it  may  not.     But 
it  is,  whether  Government  must  not  do  its  duty,  at 
every  point,  and  even  at  that  point,  where  the  doing 
of  its  duty  helps  incidentally  the  cause  of  temperance? 
To  explain  myself,  I  hold,  that  the  suppression  of  the 
sale  of  intoxicating  drinks  is  indispensable  to  the  pro 
tection  of  person  and  property  ;  and  is,  therefore,  the 
manifest  duty  of  Government.     At  the  same  time,  I 


350  TEAFFIC   IN   INTOXICATING  DRINKS 

admit,  that  the  suppression  is  important,  yes,  indispen 
sable,  to  the  success  of  the  cause  of  temperance.  Now, 
must  Grovernment  forbear  the  suppression,  in  order  to 
avoid  rendering  an  incidental  benefit  to  the  cause  of 
temperance  ?  Surely,  not  for  that  reason,  all  will  say. 
But  I  shall  be  called  on  to  prove,  that  such  suppres 
sion  is  needf  ul  to  the  protection  of  person  and  property." 
I  hold,  that  it  is,  because  the  sale  of  intoxicating  drinks 
is,  by  far,  the  most  fruitful  source  of  pauperism  and 
madness — nay,  more  fruitful  of  these  evils  than  all 
other  sources  put  together.  Indeed,  I  cannot  better 
define  a  dramshop  than  to  call  it  a  manufactory  of  pau 
pers  and  madmen:  and  this  is  a  just  definition,  whether 
we  have  reference  to  the  filthy,  noisy  hole,  where 
the  poor  and  humble  slaves  of  appetite  congregate,  or 
to  the  elegant  apartment,  which  is  made  attractive  to 
the  circles  of  wealth  and  fashion.  Moreover,  I  charge 
the  same  character  on  the  stores  and  distilleries,  which 
stand  back  of  the  dramshop,  and  supply  it.  These 
stores  and  distilleries  are  virtual  dramshops ;  and,  in 
all  my  argument,  they  are  undistinguishable,  in  respon 
sibility,  from  the  literal  dramshop. 

I  certainly  need  not  go  into  proofs  of  the  fact,  that 
the  industry  of  the  sober  is  heavily  loaded  by  the  pau 
perism,  which  the  dramshop  imposes  on  it.  That  fact 
is  as  plain,  as  the  sun.  And  so  is  the  fact,  that  the 
madmen  of  the  land  are,  to  a  great  extent,  the  manu- . 
facture  of  the  dramshop.  How  frightfully  insecure  are 


IN  THE  CITY   OF   WASHINGTON.  351 

both  property  and  life,  in  the  presence  of  these  mad 
men  ?  How  know  we,  when  we  step  into  the  stage 
coach,  the  car,  the  steamboat,  especially  on  the  fourth 
of  July,  or  some  other  holyday,  but  that  the  driver,  or 
the  engineer,  has  indulged  in  the  maddening  draught, 
and  that  our  lives  will  be  required  to  pay  for  the  indul 
gence?  How  know  we,  when  we  walk  the  streets, 
that  we  shall  not  meet  these  madmen  flourishing  their 
deadly  weapons  ?  How  know  we,  when  we  leave  our 
dwellings,  that  these  madmen  will  not,  in  our  absence, 
fire  those  dwellings,  and  murder  their  beloved  inmates? 

But,  still,  the  right  of  Government  to  suppress  the 
dramshop  is  denied.  Why  should  it  be  ?  Is  it  claimed, 
that  there  is  an  overbalance  of  good  in  it  ?  There  is 
no  good  at  all  in  it.  It  is  "  only  evil  continually."  I 
admit  that  there  are  nuisances,  which  the  Courts  should 
be  slow  to  abate.  The  mill-pond,  for  instance,  which 
generates  disease.  The  Courts  should  pause,  ere  sac 
rificing  the  costly  and  much-needed  mill,  which  the 
pond  supplies  with  water.  But  the  dramshop  does  not 
fall  in  this  class  of  nuisances.  It  has  not  one  redeem 
ing  feature.  There  is  nothing  in  it  to  mitigate  its 
immitigable  wickedness  : — nothing  to  set  over  against 
its  unmixed  mischief.  In  the  case  of  the  former  nui 
sance,  there  are  two  sides  to  be  looked  at,  before 
deciding  to  abate  it.  In  the  case  of  the  latter,  but  one. 

So  far  from  true  is  it,  that  Government  exceeds  its  pro 
vince,  in  laying  its  suppressing  hand  upon  the  dram- 


352  TRAFFIC  IN  INTOXICATING  DEINKS 

shop,  tliere  is  no  duty  of  Government,  that  falls  more 
clearly  within  its  province.  In  truth,  sir,  among  all 
the  duties  of  Government,  this  stands  preeminent. 
Indeed,  I  am  prepared  to  say  again,  as  I  have  often 
said,  that,  rather  than  have  things  remain,  as  they  now 
are,  I  would  compromise  with  Government,  and  sur 
render  all  my  claims  upon  its  protection  from  other 
burdens  and  perils,  provided  it  would  stipulate,  in  turn, 
to  protect  me  from  the  burdens  and  perils  of  the  dram 
shop.  It  is  idle  to  say,  that  a  people  are  protected  by 
Government,  who  are  left  exposed  to  these  perils  and 
burdens.  Such  a  people  are  emphatically  unprotected ; 
and  their  Government  is  emphatically  faithless. 

But  why,  I  ask  again,  is  the  right  of  Government 
to  shield  its  people  from  the  burdens  and  perils  of  the 
dramshop  denied  ?  One  reason  is,  because  this  service, 
not  having  been  rendered  hitherto,  it  would  be  un 
popular  and  odious  to  render  it,  now.  Another  and 
stronger  reason  is,  because  there  are  so  many  interested 
in  continuing  these  burdens  and  perils. 

Suppose  a  shop  should  be  opened  in  this  city,  for  the 
sale  of  a  very  pleasant  and  exhilarating  gas.  It  infu 
riates  a  portion  of  those,  who  inhale  it,  and  disposes 
them  to  burn  and  kill :  and  the  obvious  tendency,  in 
the  case  of  most  of  them,  is  to  make  them  more  or  less 
reckless  of  their  own  rights  and  interests,  and  of  the 
rights  and  interests  of  others'.  Nevertheless,  the  gas 
is  so  palatable  and  attractive,  that  as  many  as  fifty 


IN  THE   CITY  OF  WASHINGTON.  853 

persons  frequent  the  shop,  to  pay  a  liberal  price  for  it. 
"Would  Government  hesitate  to  shut  up  this  shop? 
Certainly  not.  The  number  interested  in  keeping  it 
open  would  be  too  small  for  Government  to  fear. 
And,  again,  there  could  be  no  plea  of  custom  or  prescrip 
tion  in  its  behalf,  as  in  behalf  of  the  dramshop.  No — 
Government  would  destroy  this  work;  and,  yet,  (oh, 
mad  inconsistency  !)  it  spares,  and  even  patronizes,  this 
dram-shop  work,  which  is  ten  thousand  fold  more  inju 
rious  and  destructive. 

Suppose,  too,  that  an  establishment  for  cutting  off 
hands  should  be  opened  in  this  city.  A  score  of  per 
sons,  debased  by  rum,  weary  of  work,  and  eager  to 
east  themselves  and  their  families,  more  entirely,  on 
the  public  charity,  hasten  to  this  new  establishment, 
and  pay  their  dollar  each,  for  having  their  hands  cut 
off  smoothly,  and  a  speedily  healing  ointment  applied 
to  the  bleeding  stumps.  "Who  would  doubt  the  power, 
or  disposition,  of  Government  to  put  an  end  to  this  new 
business?  No  one.  For,  as  in  the  case  of  the  gas 
shop,  there  would  be  comparatively  few  persons,  and 
no  plea  of  usage,  on  the  side  of  continuing  it.  And, 
yet,  where  the  establishment  in  question  would  cut  off 
one  pair  of  hands,  the  dramshop  virtually  cuts  off  a 
hundred  pairs.  "  Far  worse  than  that,"  said  a  friend, 
in  whose  hearing  I  employed  this  same  illustration. 
"The  dramshop  cuts  off  their  heads!"  "You  are 
wrong,"  I  rejoined.  "  The  dramshop  would  be  com- 


354  TKAFFIC  IN  INTOXICATING  DEINKS 

paraiively  bearable,  if  it  but  cut  off  the  heads  of  its 
victims.  Its  "unspeakably  greater  wrong  to  the  com 
munity  is  to  cut  off  the  hands  only,  and.  to  leave  the 
head  on,  with  the  hungry  mouth  in  it,  to  consume  the 
earnings  of  the  industrious  and  sober." 

Still  another  reason  is  given,  why  Government 
should  not  legislate  to  stop  the  sale  of  intoxicating 
drinks.  It  is  claimed,  that  such  legislation  would  be  a 
sumptuary  law.  In  no  just  sense,  however,  would  it 
be  such  a  law.  If  such  legislation  is  called  for,  in 
order  to  protect  persons  and  property,  then,  even  if  it 
should  incidentally  have,  in  some  respects  and  in  some 
directions,  the  operation  of  a  sumptuary  law,  it,  never- 
thelesss,  is  not  fair  to  look  upon  it  as  a  sumptuary  law, 
and  to  treat  it  with  the  hostility  and  contempt  due  to 
such  a  law.  Suppose,  that  a  certain  kind  of  cloth  were 
imported  into  this  country  from  China ;  and  that,  every 
where,  on  opening  the  bales,  a  deadly  and  sweeping 
disease  should  ensue;  would  it  not  be  the  perfectly 
plain  duty  of  Government  to  forbid  the  further  import 
ation  of  such  cloth?  Nevertheless,  many  might  still 
be  eager  to  wear  it,  as,  in  the  face  of  whatever  prohibi 
tion,  many  might  still  be  eager  to  purchase  intoxicating 
drinks.  And  the  one  class  would  be  as  ready,  as  the 
other,  to  stigmatize,  as  a  sumptuary  law,  the  legal  pro 
hibition  upon  their  indulgence. 

But  the  loudest  and  longest  objection  to  the  suppres 
sion  of  the  sale  of  intoxicating  drinks  by  law,  is  to  the 


IN  THE  CITY  OF  WASHINGTON.  355 

suppression  of  it  by  means  of  the  "  Maine  law."  Now, 
as  I  admit,  that  such  sale  cannot  be  suppressed  by  any 
other  law  than  the  "  Maine  law,"  or  a  law  of  its  leading 
characteristics,  I  am  bound  to  vindicate  the  "Maine 
law."  There  is  not  time  to  examine  all  its  features. 
But  the  law  will  be  justified  in  your  sight,  if  I  succeed 
in  justifying  its  great  distinctive  feature ;  —  that  fea 
ture,  which  authorizes  the  seizure  and  destruction  of 
the  liquor,  when  it  is  ascertained,  that  it  is  to  be  dis 
posed  of  for  a  drink. 

There  is  no  occasion  for  discussing  the  question, 
whether  Government  may  take  and  dispose  of,  as  it 
will,  the  property  of  its  citizen,  without  compensating 
him  therefor :  nor  is  there  occasion  for  discussing  the 
question,  whether,  in  any  circumstances,  it  may  take 
and  control  his  property,  without  his  consent.  All  I 
need  do,  at  this  point,  is  to  prove,  that  Government 
may  take,  and  treat,  as  it  will,  that,  which  is  no  longer 
property  ;  but  all  rights  of  property  in  which  are  for 
feited  by  the  guilty  and  pernicious  misuse,  to  which 
its  owner  had  perverted  it.  My  proof  to  this  end  need 
not  be  a  train  of  formal  arguments.  A  few  simple 
illustrations  instead  will  answer  the  purpose,  and  will 
save  time. 

I  will  suppose,  that  there  is  a  loaded  pistol  in  the 
pocket  of  my  friend,  who  sits  at  my  right  hand,  [Mr. 
Morgan,  of  New- York.] 


356  TRAFFIC  IN  INTOXICATING  DRINKS 

Mr.  MORGAN.    Not  a  supposable  case. 

Mr.  SMITH.  I  admit,  that  it  is  hardly  fair  to  sup 
pose  it  of  one,  who  so  trusts  in  the  shielding  care  of  his 
God,  and  in  the  good  will  of  his  fellow-men,  as  to  be 
above  the  bad  habit  of  going  armed.  Nevertheless, 
I  trust  that,  as  I  have  begun  with  the  supposition, 
he  will  allow  me  to  proceed  in  it. 

Now,  were  I  to  take  this  pistol  from  my  friend's 
pocket,  and  to  break  it  in  pieces,  I  should,  of  course, 
be  legally  liable  to  him  for  the  value  of  it.  But  were 
he  to  take  it  from  his  pocket,  and  to  aim  it  at  the  gen 
tleman,  who  adorns  the  Speaker's  chair — nay,  who 
from  his  preeminent  judgment,  impartiality,  self-pos 
session,  dignity,  seems  to  have  been  made  purposely 
for  the  Speaker's  chair — then  might  I  wrest  it  from  his 
hand,  and  dash  it  in  fragments  on  the  floor,  and  be 
under  no  legal  liability  whatever.  All  the  legal  liabil 
ity  in  the  case  would  be  on  him,  who  was  guilty  of 
putting  the  weapon  to  so  unprovoked  and  deadly  a 
misuse ;  and  who,  thereby,  forfeited  all  rights  of  pro 
perty  in  it. 

Suppose  that  Mr.  Corcoran,  of  this  city,  should,  in 
his  love  to  do  things  on  a  large  scale,  purchase  a 
barrel  of  rattlesnakes,  for  a  thousand  dollars.  He  puts 
them  in  boxes,  with  glass  covers.  He  and  his  friends 
are  in  the  habit  of  standing  over  these  boxes,  a  few 
minutes,  every  day,  to  inspect  the  serpents,  and  to 


IN  THE   CITY   OF  WASHINGTON.  357 

study  the  laws,  habits,  and  phenomena,  of  their  being. 
All  this  is  innocent  and  praiseworthy.  But  suppose 
Mr.  Corcoran  wakes  up  some  morning,  "troubled,"  as 
was  Saul,  with  "an  evil  spirit"' — for,  in  these  days} 
when  rapping,  and  tipping,  and  all  sorts  of  spirits, 
good  and  bad,  stand  so  thick  around  us,  even  Mr. 
Corcoran  and  other  good  men  are  liable  to  the  invasion 
of  evil  spirits.  Mr.  Corcoran,  now,  says :  "I  am  tired 
of  looking  at  these  snakes,  in  their  boxes.  I  wish  to 
see  them  running  about,  and  biting  people."  So  he 
takes  the  boxes  to  the  door,  and  lets  out  the  snakes 
upon  the  ground.  In  a  few  hours,  they  are  coursing 
through  the  city,  and  biting  whom  they  can.  The 
alarm  is  sounded.  Members  of  Congress,  and  all,  go 
forth  to  slay  the  snakes.  Had  we  slain  them,  when  in 
their  boxes,  Mr.  Corcoran  could  have  recovered  his 
thousand  dollars  from  us.  But,  now,  he  cannot  recover 
it — for  he  lost  all  property  in  the  snakes  by  his  reck 
less  and  wicked  liberation  of  them,  and  exposed  him 
self,  in  so  doing,  to  the  gravest  penalties. 

Suppose,  that,  some  pleasant  morning,  I  take  into 
my  hand,  my  gold-headed  cane,  (if  I  have  such  an  one,) 
studded  with  diamonds,  that  cost  ten  thousand  dollars. 
I  go  strutting  up  and  down  Pennsylvania  avenue, 
swollen  with  the  self-consequence  of  a  member  of  Con 
gress.  I  use  my  cane  in  knocking  down  children,  on 
the  right  hand  and  on  the  left.  A  gentleman  witnesses 
my  pranks ;  hastens  to  me ;  and  breaks  the  cane  in 


o58  TRAFFIC  IN   INTOXICATING  DKINKS 

pieces  across  his  knee.  Can  I  make  him  pay  me  any 
thing?  Oh,  no!  not  even  if  he  had  broken  it  in 
pieces  across  my  head.  I  lost  all  property  in  the  cane, 
by  my  wrong,  and  outrageous,  use  of  it :  and  the  sole 
question  now  is,  not  what  penalty  this  gentleman  shall 
suffer ;  but  what  penalty  I  shall  suffer,  in  addition  to 
the  loss  of  my  cane. 

These  supposed  cases  illustrate  the  actual  case  of  the 
liquor-owner.  Whilst  his  liquors  are  put  to  their 
proper  and  innocent  uses,  Government  has  no  right  to 
meddle  with  them.  But  just  as  soon  as  he  brings  them 
forth  to  use  them  in  manufacturing  paupers  and  mad- 
inen,  he  loses  all  property  in  them :  Government  may 
destroy  them ;  and  punish  the  offender,  at  its  discre 
tion. 

Let  it  not  be  inferred,  that  I  would  have  Govern 
ment  declare  all  property  forfeited,  which  is  misused. 
It  is  only  an  extreme  case,  which  can  justify  such 
declaration.  Of  such  case  Government  must  be  the 
sole  judge.  Upon  its  sole  responsibility,  Government 
is  to  select  the  case,  as  upon  their  sole  responsibility  the 
people  are  to  decide,  whether  to  submit  to  the  selection, 
or  to  rebel  against  it.  The  murderous  torpedo-box 
Government  would  not  hesitate  to  choose  as  such  an 
extreme  case ;  and  the  people  would  not  hesitate  to 
acquiesce  in  the  choice.  Such  an  extreme  case,  in  my 
own  judgment,  is  alcoholic  liquor,  also,  when  on  sale 
for  a  drink.  Our  patience  under  the  sale  of  intoxicating 


IN  THE   CITY  OF  WASHINGTON.  859 

beverages,  with  all  its  burdens,  and  perils,  and  woes, 
would  be  most  wonderful  and  inexplicable,  did  we  not 
know  the  power  of  education.  "We  are  educated  to 
witness  all  this,  in  patience  ;  and  we  are  educated  to  it 
by  Government  itself.  Civil  Government  is  mighty  to 
educate  the  people,  upward  or  downward,  either  in  a 
right  or  wrong  direction.  So  long,  as  it  licenses  or 
protects  the  dramshop,  so  long  it  is  a  mighty  influence 
to  reconcile  the  people  to  the  dramshop.  The  people 
will  follow  Government,  even  in  its  grossest  inconsist 
encies.  Government  may  declare  horses,  that  are 
brought  out  for  racing,  to  be  forfeited.  Government 
may  declare  the  gambling  apparatus,  that  is  brought 
into  public  places,  to  be  without  the  protection  of  lav/ ; 
and  in  all  this  the  people  will  acquiesce,  as  they  ac 
quiesce  in  the  gross  inconsistency  with  all  this  of  ex 
tending  the  shield  of  Government  over  the  dramshop. 
Gross  inconsistency,  indeed ! — for  the  evils  of  horse- 
racing  and  gambling  are  not  to  be  compared  with  the 
evils  of  dramshops.  Another  inconsistency,  of  which 
Government  is  guilty  in  this  case,  is  that,  in  frowning 
upon  horse-racing  and  gambling,  it  but  seeks  to  pro 
tect  the  people  from  demoralization — a  work,  which, 
to  say  the  least,  is,  when  in  its  hands,  of  very  doubtful 
legitimacy.  But  when  Government  lets  the  dramshop 
stand,  it  neglects  to  protect  person  and  property,  at  a 
point,  where  they  are  far  more  fearfully  exposed  than 
at  any  other  point:  and,  in  neglecting  such  protection, 


360  TRAFFIC   IN    INTOXICATING  DRINKS 

it  neglects  what  all  admit  to  be  the  chief  duty  in  the 
province  of  Government ;  and  what  many,  beside 
myself)  believe  to  constitute  the  sole  province  of  Gov 
ernment. 

Time  forbids,  that  I  should  extend  my  argument,  any 
further.  "Would  that  Congress  might  pass  such  a  bill, 
as  I  have  now  called  for ;  and  as  the  people  of  this 
city  did  themselves  virtually  call  for,  a  year  ago,  by  a 
vote  of  two  to  one  !  For  Government  to  break  up  the 
sale  of  intoxicating  drinks  is,  as  I  trust,  I  have  conclu 
sively  shown,  no  stretching  of  its  functions.  I  again 
admit,  that  the  sole  legitimate  work  of  Government  is 
to  minister  protection  to  person  and  property.  But,  if 
to  abate  a  nuisance,  which  yields  no  possible  good,  and 
which,  more  than  all  things  else,  perils  and  destroys 
both  person  and  property,  is  not  a  part  of  that  work, 
pray  what  is  ?  I  again  admit,  that  for  Government  to 
protect  person  and  property  from  the  dramshops  of 
this  city,  as  it  could  do,  only  by  shutting  them  up, 
would  be  to  render  an  immense  service  to  the  cause  of 
temperance  in  this  city,  in  this  nation,  in  this  world. 
I  admit,  too,  that  I  cannot,  consistently,  make  a  direct 
claim  for  this  service,  at  its  hands.  Nevertheless,  I  can 
claim  at  its  hands,  the  protection  of  person  and  pro 
perty  :  and,  happily,  the  service  in  question  is  neces 
sarily  incidental  to  such  protection.  The  service  can 
not  fail  to  follow  the  protection.  And  who  is  there, 
that  should  not  rejoice,  that  so  great  a  direct  good  and 


IN  THE   CITY   OF   WASHINGTON.  361 

so  great  an  incidental  good  are  brought  together,  and 
are  inseparable  ? 

The  city  of  Washington  is,  in  sacred  language, 
"  beautiful  for  situation."  Than  that  it  wears,  there  is 
no  greater  human  name.  It  is,  too,  the  capital  of  a 
great  nation ; — so  great,  as  to  need  only  to  be  as  good, 
as  it  is  great.  Its  population  is  increasing  rapidly  ;  and 
buildings  are  going  up  in,  and  art  is  embellishing,  every 
part  of  its  broad  and  beautiful  amphitheatre.  Fifty 
years  hence,  if  our  children  shall  be  so  wise  and  vir 
tuous,  as  to  constitute  one  nation,  here  will  be  two 
hundred  thousand  people;  and  here  will  then  be  a 
city  unsurpassed  in  intelligence,  and  in  all  the  refine 
ments  and  elegancies,  which  adorn  the  highest  style  of 
social  life.  Upon  all  this  beauty— upon  all  this  glory 
— shall  the  blot  of  the  dramshop  remain  ?  Nay,  will 
it  be  possible  to  attain  to  this  beauty  and  glory,  if  this 
broad  and  deep  blot  is  suffered  to  remain  ? 

Why,  then,  should  we  not,  in  the  clearest  terms, 
authorize  the  suppression  of  the  sale  of  intoxicating 
drinks,  in  this  city?  Who  would  be  harmed  by  the 
suppression?  What  mother,  what  wife,  would  shed 
one  tear  the  more,  because  of  it  ?  What  sister  would 
heave  one  sigh  the  more,  because  of  it?  And  who  of 
us  would  be  the  worse  for  it  ?  Nay,  who  of  us  would 
be  the  worse  for  never  again  using  any  alcoholic  liquors 
for  a  drink  ?  And  who  of  our  successors,  on  coming 
to  this  city,  would  suffer  any  injury  by  not  meeting  the 


362  TKAFFIC  IN  INTOXICATING  DEINKS. 

temptation  of  the  dramshop?  I  have  spoken  of  OUT 
successors  in  these  seats.  But  for  the  egotism  of  it,  I 
would  add,  much  in  the  language  of  Paul  before  king 
Agrippa:  "I  would  to  God,  that  not  only  they,  (our 
successors,)  but  also  all  that  hear  me,  this  day,  were 
both  almost  and  altogether  such  as  I  am,"  in  respect  to 
intoxicating  liquors  ! — for  it  is  more  than  a  quarter  of 
a  century,  since  I  drank  any  of  them ;  and,  as  to  rny 
children  and  children's  children,  they  are  ignorant  of 
the  taste  of  them.  Happy  ignorance ! — may  it  last  as 
long,  as  they  shall  last !  Happy  ignorance ! — may  it 
become  universal ! 

Let,  then,  this  city  be  purged  of  liquor-selling !  And 
when  that  is  done,  it  will  be,  not  only  "beautiful  for 
situation ; "  but,  in  further  sacred  language,  it  will  be 
"the  joy  of  the  whole  earth."  The  good  of  every 
land  will  rejoice  in  the  sight ;  and  the  evil  of  every 
land  will  be  profitably  impressed  by  it.  Moreover,  to 
the  Government  of  every  land  this  authorized  and 
indispensable  exercise  of  governmental  powers  will  be 
an  influential  and  blessed  example. 


SPEECH 

AGAINST 

PROVIDING    INTOXICATING    DRINKS 

FOR  THE  NAYY. 
JULY      25,        1854. 

THE  Bill,  making  appropriations  for  the  naval  serv 
ice  being  under  consideration,  Mr.  SMITH  said: 

I  move  to  amend  the  bill  by  adding,  after  the  follow 
ing  paragraph : 

"For  provisions  for  commission,  warrant,  and  petty 
officers  and  seamen,  including  engineers  and  marines 
attached  to  vessels  for  sea-service,  $686,200," 

these  words: 

"  But  no  intoxicating  liquors  shall  be  provided  for  a 
beverage." 

I  hope,  sir,  that  the  committee  will  bear  with  me  in 


364  SPEECH  AGAINST  PEOVIDING 

my  folly — my  characteristic  folly — of  endeavoring  to 
make  things  better  than  we  find  them.  The  most  com 
mon  objection  to  reforms  is,  that  we  should  take  things 
as  we  find  them.  I  admit,  that  we  should.  But,  I  add, 
that  we  should  labor  to  leave  them  better  than  we  find 
them. 

The  armies  and  navies  of  the  world  are  nurseries  of 
drunkenness :  and  drunkenness  is  the  cause,  more  than 
all  other  causes  put  together,  of  the  insubordinations, 
troubles,  crimes,  which  abound  in  armies  and  navies. 
To  this  appalling  fact  the  American  army  and  navy 
constitute  no  exception.  Now,  the  bill  before  us  pro 
poses  no  change  in  this  respect.  On  the  contrary,  it 
would  have  this  evil  go  on,  after  the  old  fashion.  But 
the  amendment,  which  I  have  offered,  proposes  a 
radical  change  in  this  respect;  and  a  change  no 
less  blessed  than  radical. 

All  are  aware  that,  in  every  department  and  employ 
ment,  sober  men  are  more  to  be  relied  on  than  drunken 
men,  and  are  better  and  happier  men.  This  is  as  true 
of  sailors  and  soldiers,  as  of  any  other  men.  How 
carefully,  then,  should  Government  refrain  from  what 
ever  might  encourage  intemperate  habits  in  their 
sailors  and  soldiers  !  How  steadfastly  should  we  refuse 
the  folly  and  the  sin  of  putting  the  cup  of  woe  and 
ruin  and  death  to  their  lips  ! 

Would  we  have  our  armed  vessel  carry,  wherever 
she  may  go,  high  evidence  of  the  strength  and  wisdom 


INTOXICATING  DRINKS  FOR  THE  NAVY.         365 

of  America?  Then  let  it  be  a  temperance  vessel. 
Were  the  world  to  know,  that  the  American  army 
and  navy  are  divorced  from  rum,  the  world  would  be 
impressed  with  the  strength  and  wisdom  of  America, 
as  it  never  yet  has  been.  Would  we  make  our  army 
and  navy  a  far  greater  terror  to  our  enemies  than  they 
otherwise  can  be?  Then  let  us  make  them  a  cold 
water  army  and  navy. 

But,  sir,  we  do  not  wish  our  navy  to  harm  the  world. 
We  wish  it  to  bless  the  world.  We  would  rather  have 
it  exert  a  redeeming  moral  influence  than  find  occasion 
to  wield  its  physical  force.  Then,  sir,  let  our  ships  of 
war,  whatever  lands  they  may  visit,  be  to  those  lands 
temperance  lecturers.  Such  temperance  lecturers  would 
move  the  world,  and  bless  the  world.  Would  that  our 
ships  of  war  might  undergo  this  transformation! 
Little  occasion  would  there  then  be  for  the  ordinary 
officers  of  a  navy. 

Adopt  my  amendment,  sir,  and  let  it  become  a  law, 
and  five  years  will  not  pass  away,  before  liquor  rations 
will  cease  from  the  army,  as  well  as  from  the  navy  : 
and  ten  years  will  not  pass  away,  before  both  the  army 
and  navy  will  be  purged  of  drunkards.  For  by  that 
time,  we  shall,  in  that  case,  refuse  to  enlist  drunkards 
either  into  the  army  or  navy.  And  then,  sir,  thou 
sands  of  fathers  and  mothers  will  bless  God,  and  bless 
you  for  the  precious  reform,  which  you  shall  this  day 
have  begun.  They  will  remember  you  with  gratitude 


366         INTOXICATING  DRINKS  FOE  THE  NAVY. 

and  love.  For  they  will  then  hope,  that  if  their  sons 
shall  enter  the  army  or  navy,  they  will,  nevertheless, 
escape  drunkenness.  And  the  hope  that  their  children 
will  not  be  drunkards,  is  a  precious  hope  to  every  right- 
hearted  parent — as  precious  to  every  good  parental 
heart,  as  the  apprehension,  that  they  will  be  drunkards, 
is  withering  to  such  a  heart. 

And  should  it  be  so,  sir,  that  our  army  and  navy 
shall  be  freed  from  the  curse  of  rum-drinking,  our  hope 
will  then  be  quickened,  that  the  whole  country  will  be 
freed  from  this  curse.  Judges  and  law-makers  will  be 
ashamed  to  drink  rum,  when  our  sailors  and  soldiers 
have  ceased  to  drink  it ;  and  who  else  will  not,  then, 
be  ashamed  to  drink  it?  If  only  for  the  happy  reflex 
influence  upon  ourselves  of  our  attempts  to  introduce 
this  reform  into  the  army  and  navy,  these  attempts 
would  be  well  paid  for. 


SPEECH 

IS  PAVOE  OP 

INDEMNIFYING  MR.  RIDDLE  AND  MR.  PEABODY. 

AU  GUST     1,    1854. 

THE  Civil  and  Diplomatic  Bill  was  under  considera 
tion,  and  Mr.  BAYLY,  of  Virginia,  had  moved  to  strike 
out  the  following  Senate  amendment,  namely: 

"  To  enable  the  Secretary  of  State  to  reimburse  to 
Edward  Eiddle  such  sums,  as  shall  be  satisfactorily 
shown  to  have  been  expended  by  him,  or  which  said 
Eiddle  may  have  obligated  himself  to  pay,  on  account 
of  his  official  position  at  the  Industrial  Exhibition  at 
London,  England,  or  so  much  thereof  as  shall  be  neces 
sary,  $26,000 :  provided  that  no  portion  of  the  payments 
made  pro  rata  by  contributors  at  said  Exhibition  shall 
be  regarded  as  within  this*  appropriation." 

Mr.  SMITH  moved  to  increase  the  sum  one  dollar, 
and  said : 


INDEMNIFYING   MR.    RIDDLE, 


The  honorable  gentleman  from  Virginia,  [Mr.  Bayly,] 
spoke  of  a  mischievous  precedent  in  this  case.  There 
is  such  a  precedent.  But  it  is  not  to  be  found  where 
that  gentleman  finds  it.  It  will  not  be  found  in  our 
adoption  of  the  Senate  amendment.  That  mischievous 
precedent  came  into  being  when  the  Government 
embarked  in  this  affair  ;  and  put  one  of  its  vessels  at 
the  service  of  its  citizens.  Had  the  Government  kept 
clear  of  this  affair,  and  confined  itself  to  its  sole  legiti 
mate  office  of  protecting  persons  and  property,  we 
should  not  have  been  annoyed  by  this  amendment  of 
the  Senate.  But  the  Government  mixed  itself  up  with 
the  proper  business  of  its  citizens.  Therein  was  the  mis 
chievous  precedent;  and  in  that  precedent  lies  our 
obligation  to  meet  the  consequences  which  we  are  now 
called  on  to  meet  ;  and  to  repay  the  money  which  was 
advanced,  because  we  gave  a  governmental  aspect  and 
character  to  the  enterprise. 

When  our  ingenious  citizens  were  tempted  by  the 
liberality  of  the  Government  to  put  their  inventions 
on  board  this  vessel,  they  did  not  foresee,  that  a  great 
expense  must  be  incurred  between  the  arrival  of  their 
fabrics  on  the  English  coast  and  the  getting  of  them 
upon  exhibition.  This  expense  they  were  not  able  to 
meet.  Indeed,  they  were  not  there  to  meet  it.  The 
question  now  was  what  to  do  with  the  fabrics.  Should 
they  be  left  at  Southampton,  where  they  were,  or  be 
returned  to  America  ?  Either  would  have  been  deeply 


INDEMNIFYING  MB.   RIDDLE.  369 

disgraceful  to  our  Government  and  nation ;  for  either 
of  them  would  have  been  attributed  to  niggardly  con 
duct,  on  the  part  of  the  Government.  The  represent 
atives  of  the  various  nations  of  the  earth,  assembled 
at  the  Crystal  Palace,  would  have  thus  attributed  it. 
They  would  have  held  our  Government  responsible  for 
the  failure  of  these  inventions  of  our  citizens  to  reach 
the  Palace— for  they  would,  of  course,  have  held  the 
importation  of  these  inventions  to  be  a  governmental 
enterprise.  Surely,  if  the  appearances  in  the  case  led 
both  Mr.  Peabody  and  Mr.  Lawrence  to  regard  the 
importation  of  the  inventions  as  an  enterprise  of  the 
Government,  these  strangers  and  the  whole  British  pub 
lic,  would  have  been  justified  in  so  regarding  it.  In 
the  eyes  of  all  these,  then,  our  Government  and  nation 
would  have  been  disgraced,  if  the  fabrics  had  not 
reached  the  Palace.  Honor,  therefore,  great  honor,  is 
due  to  Mr.  Peabody  for  having  come  forward  so  gene 
rously  to  shield  his  native  land  and  her  Government 
from  impending  disgrace  ;  and  dishonor,  deep  dishonor, 
will  follow  the  refusal  to  enable  Mr.  Eiddle  to  repay  the 
$26,000,  which  Mr.  Peabody's  strong  American  feel 
ings  prompted  him  to  lend  Mr.  Eiddle. 

I  cannot  believe,  that  we  are  willing  to  let  Mr.  Pea- 
body,  or  Mr.  Eiddle,  lose  this  money.  Sure  I  am,  that 
our  country  will  not  be  found  'willing  to  have  either  of 
them  lose  it. 


SPEECH 

IN  FAVOR  OP 

CUSTOM-HOUSES  AT  BUFFALO  AND   OSWEGO. 

AUGUST    1,    1854. 

THE  Civil  and  Diplomatic  Bill  was  under  considera 
tion,  and  Mr.  JONES,  of  Tennessee,  had  said,  that 
the  Committee  non-concurred  in  the  Senate's  amend 
ment  for  constructing  several  custom-houses.  Mr. 
SMITH  moved  to  add  one  dollar  to  each  sum  mentioned 
in  the  Senate's  amendment,  and  said : 

In  making  this  motion  I  signify  that  I  am  in  favor 
of  building  these  custom-houses.  On  what  ground  it 
is  that  the  building  of  them  is  objected  to,  I  do  not 
know.  Is  it  on  the  ground  that  the  tariff  system  should 
be  abandoned;  and  that,  therefore,  all  custom-houses, 
both  existing  and  prospective,  must,  fall  with  it  ?  If 
on  that  ground,  then  I  welcome  the  objection,  for  I 
am  an  absolute  free-trade  man,  would  have  Grovern- 
ment  supported  by  direct  taxes,  and  do  not  expect  to 


372      CUSTOM-HOUSES  AT  BUFFALO   AND   OSWEGO. 

see  Government  right  until  it  is  so  supported.     But  it 
is  not  on  that  ground  that  the  building  of  these  custom 
houses  is  objected  to.     None  of  the  objectors  propose 
free  trade.     All  are  in  favor  of  continuing  to  defray 
the  expenses  of  Government  by  duties.     Hence  all  of 
them  are  to  be  regarded  as  in  favor  of  safe  and  suit 
able  buildings  for  custom-house  business,  wherever 
there  is  enough  of  such  business  to  make  such  build 
ings  necessary.     I  take  it  for  granted  that  the   only 
question  in  the  case,  which  these  objectors  allow  to  be 
pertinent  and  influential  with  them,  is,  whether  there 
is  business  to  warrant  the  erection  of  the  proposed 
custom-houses.     Others  must  speak  for  the  custom 
houses  recommended  in  other  States.     I  will  confine 
myself  to  the  advocacy  of  the  two  recommended  to  be 
built  in  my  own.     Both  are  needed,  by  the  fact  that, 
in  each-  of  the  towns,  (Buffalo  and  Oswego,)  there  is  a 
vast  amount  of  custom-house  business.     That  of  Oswe 
go,  I  feel  safe  in  saying,  exceeds  that  of  any  other  town  in 
the  nation  above  tide-water.     Indeed,  there  are  scarcely 
more  than  half  a  dozen  towns  in  the  whole  nation  that 
exceed  Oswego  in  custom-house  business.     The  duties 
payable  on  bonded  and  unbonded  property  passing  • 
through  Oswego  in  the  year  1853,  exceeded  $696,000. 
This  year  they  will  probably  exceed   $1,000,000.     I 
learn  from  the  collector  of  that  port  that  they  amounted, 
up  to  the  30th  June,  to  $518,276. 

To  enforce  my  claim  for  a,  custom-house  in  Oswego, 


CUSTOM-HOUSES  AT  BUFFALO  AND  OSWEGO.      373 

I  will  read  to  the  committee  an  extract  from  a  letter 
which  I  received  a  fortnight  since  from  the  collector  : 

"  You  will  see  that  our  business  is  constantly  and  largely  increas 
ing.  The  bonded  property  received  here  from  Canada  this  year  to 
the  end  of  June,  is  nearly  equal  to  the  total  of  last  year ;  and  the 
last  year  showed  a  very  large  increase  on  any  former  year." 

Speaking  of  the  contracted  and  unfit  building  which 
Government  leases,  the  collector  says : 

"  The  custom-house  building  here  is  eighteen  feet  by  fifty  feet,  and 
contains  no  vault  or  place  of  deposit  for  the  public  moneys  collected 
here  except  a  common  iron  safe.  My  clerks  and  assistants  when 
fully  employed,  as  is  the  case  the  greater  part  of  the  business  season, 
are  about  as  closely  stowed  as  children  at  the  desks  of  a  well-filled 
country  school-house." 

I  would  add  that  the  collector  has  also  informed  me, 
as  a  further  illustration  of  the  large  amount  of  business 
in  his  office,  that  the  number  of  persons  employed  in 
it  is  thirty-five. 

I  have,  now,  ended  my  plea  for  a  custom-house  in 
Oswego.  Confident  I  am  that  the  facts  in  this  plea 
cannot  be  resisted.  But  if,  by  possibility,  they  shall 
be  resisted,  and  Government  shall  refuse  to  build  a 
custom-house  in  Oswego,  what  shall  I  say  to  reconcile 
my  constituents  to  such  refusal?  What  pacifying 
explanations  will  you  enable  me  to  make  to  them? 
What  shall  I  be  able  to  say  to  them  in  vindication  of 
the  justice,  impartiality,  consistency  of  Government  ? 

[Here  the  hammer  fell.l 


FINAL    LETTER 


TO  IHS 


CONSTITUENTS. 

WASHINGTON,  AUGUST  7,  1854. 
To  My  Constituents  : 

To  the  end,  that  you  might  have  ample  time  to  look 
around  you  for  my  successor,  I  apprised  you,  some 
weeks  ago,  of  my  intention  to  resign  my  seat  in  Con 
gress,  at  the  close  of  the  present  session.  I  now  in 
form  you,  that  I  have  fulfilled  this  intention.  The 
session  ended,  to-day ;  and,  to-day,  I  have  sent  to  the 
Secretary  of  State,  at  Albany,  the  necessary  evidence 
of  my  actual  resignation. 

I  take  this  occasion  for  saying,  that  I  am  happy  to 
learn  of  your  favorable  regard  for  my  general  course 
in  Congress  ;  and  that  I  am  sorry,  though  not  surpris 
ed,  to  learn,  that  there  are  some  things  in  it,  with 
which  a  few — perhaps,  more  than  a  few — of  you  are 
dissatisfied. 

And,  now,  since  I  have  adverted  to  this  dissatisfac- 


376  FINAL  LETTER  TO  HIS  CONSTITUENTS. 

tion,  it  seems  proper  to  say  more.  How  much  more  ? 
Shall  I  but  add  the  simple '  declaration,  that,  concern 
ing  the  things  with  which  you  are  dissatisfied,  I  did 
what  I  thought  to  be  right  ?  To  stop  there  would  not 
be  sufficiently  respectful  to  you.  You  are  entitled  to 
my  reasons — to,  at  least,  the  principal  of  them — for 
this  part  of  my  official  conduct :  and,  I  add,  that  I  am 
not  to  be  impatient  with  you,  if  they  shall  fail  to  satisfy 
you.  Nay,  I  am  not  to  be  so  vain,  as  to  suppose,  that 
it  is  possible  to  render  sound  and  satisfying  reasons  for 
all  the  numerous  things,  which  I  have  said  and  done, 
in  Congress.  That  a  life,  always  so  full  of  errors, 
before  my  coming  to  Congress,  was  to  be  entirely 
empty  of  them,  whilst  in  Congress,  was  not  to  be 
expected,  either  by  my  constituents,  or  by  myself. 

I  have,  always,  suffered,  very  greatly  and  very  un 
justly,  in  the  world's  esteem,  because  the  world  has, 
always,  persisted  in  judging  me,  by  the  light  of  its 
own,  instead  of  my  own,  creeds  and  practices.  To  try 
a  man's  consistency,  he  must  be  tried  by  himself:  and 
to  try  his  integrity  even,  he  must,  to  no  small  extent, 
be  tried  by  himself — by  his  own  beliefs  and  deeds — 
by  his  own  life,  both  speculative  and  practical. 

I  noticed  strictures  upon  almost  the  very  first  sen 
tence  of  my  very  first  speech  in  Congress,  which  taught 
me,  that  my  official,  no  more  than  my  private,  life,  was 
to  be  exempt  from  the  injustice  to  which  I  have,  here, 
alluded.  It  so  happened,  that  I  began  that  speech 


FINAL  LETTER  TO  HIS  CONSTITUENTS.  377 

•with,  expressions  of  civility  toward  those  around  me, 
and  with  kind  and  charitable  interpretations  of  the 
differences  between  them  and  myself.  JSTo  sooner  was 
the  speech  in  print  than  many  abolitionists  complained 
of  my  courtesy  to  slaveholders ;  and  insisted,  that  I 
had  been  guilty  of  making  light  of  the  radical  differ 
ences  between  slavery  and  abolition — between  slave 
holders  and  abolitionists.  Assuming,  as  they  did,  that 
I  was  but  "  a  one-idea  abolitionist,"  they  further,  and 
very  naturally,  assumed,  that  I  stood  up  to  make  that 
speech,  with  nothing,  but  slavery  and  slaveholders,  in 
my  eye.  Two  things,  which  they  should  have  remem 
bered,  they  seemed  entirely  to  have  forgotten.  One 
of  these  is,  that  I  entered  Congress  with  such  peculiar 
theories  of  Civil  Government — matured  and  cherished, 
however  visionary  and  false — as,  I  foresaw,  must  be, 
continually,  bringing  out  differences  between  my  asso 
ciates  and  myself,  not  on  the  question  of  slavery  only, 
but  on  innumerable  other  questions  also.  The  other 
is,  that  among  these  theories,  is  the  duty,  resting  im 
peratively  on  the  inmates  of  a  legislative  hall,  to  know 
nothing,  whilst  in  such  hall,  of  each  other's  private 
character  and  private  relations ;  and  to  recognize,  and 
treat,  each  other  as  gentlemen.  This  much,  at  least 
then,  can  be  said  in  vindication  of  the  opening  of  the 
speech,  in  question— that,  however  little  it  correspond 
ed  with  the  views  of  others,  it  faithfully  reflected  my 
own :  and  that,  so  far  as  it  is  the  duty  of  every  man 


878  FINAL  LETTER  TO  HIS  CONSTITUENTS. 

to  be,  in  all  circumstances  himself,  and  the  duty  of  all 
others  to  judge  him  by  himself,  I  was  not  obnoxious  to 
criticism. 

The  first  complaint  of  my  conduct  in  Congress,  save 
that,  which  I  have,  just  now,  incidentally  referred  to, 
was,  that  I  voted  against  the  "  Homestead  Bill" — and, 
that,  too,  after  having  made  a  speech  in  its  favor. 
This  apparent  inconsistency  is  disposed  of  by  the 
single  remark,  that  it  was  not,  until  after  the  speech, 
that  the  bill  was  so  amended,  as  to  confine  its  benefits 
to  white  persons.  But  to  relieve  myself  of  this 
apparent  inconsistency  falls  very  far  short  of  setting  me 
wholly  right,  in  the  eyes  of  my  critics.  None  the  less 
will  they  continue  to  say,  that,  notwithstanding  the 
amendment  debarred  me  from  doing  justice  to  the 
blacks,  I  should  still  have  been  ready  to  do  justice  to 
the  whites,  and,  therefore,  to  vote  for  the  bill.  But 
what  if  they  should  come  to  believe,  as,  I  hold,  all 
persons  should  believe,  that  it  is  not  the  Government, 
but  the  people — and  the  people  equally — that  own  the 
land? — then,  they  would  promptly  acquit  me  of  all 
blame  in  the  case.  If,  for  the  sake  of  illustration,  the 
light-eyed  man  and  the  dark-eyed  man  do  each  really 
own  eighty  acres  of  the  public  land ;  then,  beyond  all 
doubt,  it  is  not  justice,  which  is  done  to  the  light-eyed 
man,  in  voting  him  one  hundred  and  sixty  acres,  and 
in  leaving  none  for  the  dark-eyed  man.  That  can  not 
be  justice,  which  is  made  up,  so  essentially,  of  injust- 


FINAL  LETTEE  TO  HIS  CONSTITUENTS.  379 

ice.  That  can  not  be  justice,  which  robs  one  man  to 
add  the  spoils  of  robbery  to  the  already  Ml  share  of 
another.  It  is  true,  that  this  is  only  a  supposed  case, 
which  I  have,  here,  presented.  But,  manifestly,  the 
principle,  in  the  actual  case  before  us,  is  the  same  as  in 
this  supposed  case.  Manifestly,  the  argument  could,  in 
no  wise,  be  affected  by  substituting  a  light-skinned 
man  for  the  light-eyed  one,  and  a  darked-skinned 
man  for  the  dark-eyed  one.  Manifestly,  the  rights  of 
men  can  no  more  turn  on  the  color  of  the  skin  than  on 
the  color  of  the  eye. 

I  trust,  that  nothing  I  have  here  said  will  be  con 
strued  into  an  impeachment  of  the  integrity  of  those, 
who  voted  for  the  "  Homestead  Bill."  Among  them 
are  some,  whom  I  know  to  be  good,  as  well  as  wise, 
men.  They  surveyed  the  subject  in  the  light  of  their 
own  philosophy,  and  not  in  the  light  of  mine:  and, 
hence,  they  saw  not,  that  their  vote  went  to  involve 
both  themselves  and  the  recipients  of  the  land  in  the 
guilt  of  robbery. 

D  The  next  complaint,  which  came  to  my  ears,  was, 
that  I  refused  to  become  a  party  to  the  plan  for  pre 
venting  the  taking  of  the  vote  on  the  Nebraska  bill. 
This  refusal  was  a  great  grief  to  the  abolitionists  in 
both  Houses  of  Congress  :  and  I  scarcely  need  say,  that 
I  love  them  too  well  not  to  grieve  in  their  grief, 
ertheless,  I  had  to  persist  in  the  refusal,  and  in  stand- 
in-  alone.  The  wisest  of  men  and  the  best  of  men, 


380  FINAL  LETTER  TO  HIS  CONSTITUENTS. 

entreated  me,  over  and  over  again,  by  my  regard  for 
my  reputation,  and  by  all,  that  is  precious  in  the  cause 
of  freedom,  not  to  persevere  in  this  singularity.  Nev 
ertheless — and,  that,  too,  notwithstanding  obstinacy 
had  never  been  imputed  to  me — I  was  immovable. 
How  could  I  be  moved,  when  it  was  my  convictions, 
that  fastened  me  to  my  position  ?  Years  before,  in  the 
calm  studies  of  my  secluded  home,  I  had  adopted  the 
democratic  theory — not  nominally  and  coldly  and  par 
tially — but  really  and  earnestly  and  fully:  and  the 
conclusions,  which  I  had  arrived  at,  in  circumstances 
so  favorable  for  arriving  at  just  conclusions,  I  was 
entirely  unwilling  to  repeal,  in  a  season  of  excitement 
and  temptation.  I  spoke  of  the  democratic  theory. 
But  the  soul  of  that  theory  is  the  majority  principle. 
Hence,  to  violate  this  principle  is  to  abandon  that 
theory.  I  was,  frequently,  told,  that  those  rules  of  the 
House,  in  the  expert  use  of  which  the  taking  of  the 
vote  on  the  Nebraska  bill  could  be  staved  off  indefi 
nitely,  were  made  for  the  very  purpose  of  enabling  the 
minority  to  hold  the  majority  at  bay,  whenever  it 
might  please  to  do  so.  But  this  did  not  influence  me. 
For,  in  the  first  place,  I  could  not  believe,  that  they 
were  made  for  so  wrongful — for  so  anti-democratic — a 
purpose:  and,  in  the  second  place,  even  had  I  thus 
believed,  I,  nevertheless,  could  not  have  consented  to 
use  them  for  that  purpose.  There  is  no  rule — nay, 
there  is  no  enactment,  however  solemn  or  commanding, 


FINAL  LETTER  TO  HIS  CONSTITUENTS.  381 

that  I  can  consent  to  wield  against  the  all-vital  and 
sacred  majority  principle ;  or,  in  other  words,  against 
democracy  itself. 

"When  I  complained,  that  the  plan  in  question  was 
revolution,  I  was  charged  with  inconsistency; — incon 
sistency  with  my  well-known  readiness  to  rescue  a  fugi 
tive  slave.  It  is  true,  that  I  would  rescue  a  fugitive 
slave.  Nevertheless,  I  felt  not  the  pertinence  of  the 
charge  of  inconsistency.  In  rescuing  him,  I  take  my 
stand  outside  of  the  Government,  and  am  a  confessed 
revolutionist.  Let  it  be  remembered,  that  it  is  only, 
whilst  and  where,  I  am  inside  of  the  Government,  that 
I  acknowledge  myself  bound  to  bow  to  the  will  of  the 
majority.  I  bow  to  it  in  the  legislative  hall  and  in  the 
court-room;  and  everywhere  and  always  do  I  bow  to 
it;  until  the  purposed  execution  of  the  decree,  that  is 
intolerable.  Then  I  rebel.  They  are  guilty  of  antici 
pating  the  only  proper  time  for  rebellion,  who  resort  to 
it,  during  the  process  of  legislation.  I  sit  in  the  House 
of  Eepresentatives,  and  hear  my  fellow  members  dis 
cuss,  and  see  them  vote  upon,  a  bill,  which  wrongs  me 
greatly.  Argument  and  persuasion  and  my  vote  are 
all,  that  I  can,  legitimately,  oppose  to  its  passage.  If  it 
pass,  and  its  enforcement  be  contemplated,  it  will  be. 
then,  for  me  to  decide  whether  to  rebel  against  the 
Government,  and  to  resist  the  enforcement. 

I  need  say  no  more,  in  explanation,  or  defence,  of 
my  grounds  for  refusing  to  go  into  the  scheme  to  pre- 


382  FINAL  LETTER  TO  HIS  CONSTITUENTS. 

vent  the  majority  from  bringing  the  House  to  a  vote 
on  the  Nebraska  bill.  I  will,  however,  before  leaving 
this  subject,  advert  to  the  fact,  that  for  refusing  to  go 
into  this  scheme — into  this  physical  struggle,  which 
continued  through  thirty-five  successive  hours — into 
this  strife  to  see  which  party  could  go  the  longer,  with 
out  sleeping,  and  eating,  and,  I  would  that  I  could  add, 
without  drinking  also — my  reputation  for  fidelity  to  the 
anti-slavery  cause  has  suffered  not  a  little,  in  some 
quarters.  Moreover,  it  is  not  only  in  this  wise,  that  I 
suffered  loss  by  refusing  to  follow  the  multitude  on 
that  occasion.  My  reputation  for  a  sound  understand 
ing,  poor  as  it  was  before — and  poor  as  that  of  every 
radical  and  earnest  abolitionist  must  continue  to  be, 
until  abolition  shall  be  in  the  ascendant — is  far  poorer 
now.  It  is,  I  suppose,  for  my  singularity  on  that 
memorable  occasion,  that  a  very  distinguished  and 
much-esteemed  editor  tells  the  world,  that  I  am  "defi 
cient  in  common  sense."  I  am  happy  to  believe,  how 
ever,  that  this  editor  will  readily  admit,  that  it  is  far 
better  to  be  "deficient  in  common  sense"  than  in  com 
mon  honesty :  and  that,  when  he  shall  have  read  this 
letter,  he  will  clearly  see,  that,  with  my  views  of  the 
comprehensive  and  sacred  claims  of  the  majority  prin 
ciple,  I  could  not  have  gone  into  the  combination  in 
question,  and  yet  have  retained  common  honesty.  I 
was  a  fool  in  this  editor's  esteem  not  to  go  into  it.  But 
lie  will  now  perceive,  that  I  would  have  been  a  rogue, 


FINAL  LETTER  TO  HIS  CONSTITUENTS.  388 

had  I  gone  into  it.  He  will,  now,  be  glad,  that  I  did 
not  go  into  it.  For  much  as  he  values  knowledge,  he 
values  integrity  more.  And  were  he,  now,  to  meet 
me,  he  would  press  my  hand,  and  thank  me,  that  I 
played  the  fool  in  preference  to  playing  the  rogue. 

By  the  way,  will  not  this  editor  allow  me  to  remind 
him,  that  when,  a  little  more  than  three  short  years 
ago,  I  went  into  different  parts  of  our  State  to  speak 
against  certain  Senators  for  their  daring  to  prevent  the 
necessary  majority  of  the  Senate  from  passing  the  Canal 
bill,  he  had  no  censures,  but  rather  praises,  to  bestoy\r 
on  me  ?  It  is  true,  that  he  and  I  both  desired  the  suc 
cess  of  the  Canal  bill;  and  that  we  both  desired  the 
defeat  of  the  Nebraska  bill.  And  it  is  true,  therefore, 
that,  whilst  my  principles  worked  for  his  and  my  inter 
ests  and  wishes,  in  the  former  case,  they  worked,  (at 
least,  as  some  thought,)  against  them,  in  the  latter. 
Was  this,  however,  a  good  reason  why  I  should  not 
allow  them  to  work  in  the  latter,  as  well  as  in  the 
former,  case?  I  ask  this  editor — I  ask  the  world — 
how  it  was  possible  for  me  to  fall  in  with  this  policy  of 
preventing  the  vote  on  the  Nebraska  bill,  unless  I  was, 
also,  prepared  to  revoke  my  condemnation  of  the  like 
policy  on  the  part  of  the  Senators,  to  whom  I  have 
referred. 

Let  it  not  be  thought,  that  I  call  in  question  either 
the  wisdom  or  integrity  of  the  members  of  Congress, 
who  went  into  this  combination.  Wiser  and  better  men 


884  FINAL  LETTER  TO  HIS  CONSTITUENTS. 

than  myself  went  into  it.  Nevertheless,  they  could 
not  have  gone  into  it,  had  they  entertained  my  views, 
be  those  views  sound  or  false,  of  the  rights  of  the 
majority. 

Ere  leaving  the  Nebraska  bill,  I  will  briefly  refer  to 
the  censures,  which  have  been  cast  on  one  of  my  private 
letters.  The  whole,  or  none,  of  that  letter  should  have 
been  printed.  I  was  sorry  to  see  disjointed  parts  of  it 
in  print.  The  letter  is  not  before  me.  But,  I  remem 
ber,  that  I  spoke  in  it  against  night-sessions  of  Congress, 
and  declared,  that,  had  the  hour  of  three  in  the  morn 
ing  been  appointed  for  taking  the  vote  on  the  Nebraska 
bill,  I  should  not  have  been  present.  This  declaration 
has  been  seized  on,  to  show  my  low  estimate  of  the  value 
of  the  anti-slavery  cause.  Now,  I  have  not  one  word 
to  offer  in  proof,  that  I  do,  really  and  greatly,  love  this 
cause.  If  proof  to  this  end  is  still  lacking,  even  after 
more  than  a  quarter  of  a  century's  profession  of  such 
love,  then,  most  certainly,  no  proof  can  be  found,  that 
can  supply  the  lack. 

It  is  contended,  that  I  would  have  been  as  much 
bound,  in  the  supposed  case,  to  have  been  present,  at 
the  taking  of  the  vote,  as  the  editor  of  a  daily  newspa 
per  is  to  be  often  at  his  desk,  until  a  late  hour  of  the 
night;  and  (it  might  have  been  added,  with  as  much 
propriety)  as  the  physician  is,  to  pass  the  whole  night 
often,  at  the  bedside  of  his  patient.  Now,  not  to  say, 
that  this  night-labor,  on  the  part  of  the  editor  and  phy- 


FINAL   LETTER   TO   HIS   CONSTITUENTS.  385 

sician,  is  a  foreseen  and  voluntarily  incurred  one,  and 
is,  therefore,  in  this  respect,  most  widely  distinguish 
able  from  the  three  o'clock  appointment;  it  is  enough 
to  say, that  this  night-labor  is  a  necessity,  and  that  this 
three  o'clock  appointment  is  not ;  and  that,  hence,  it  is 
absurd  to  refer  to  the  labor  to  justify  the  appointment. 
Had  I  taken  the  ground  not  to  obey  any  summons  to 
appear  in  Congress,  at  three  o'clock  in  the  morning — 
not  even  that,  which  was  prompted  by  the  sudden 
landing  of  a  mighty  enemy,  or  by  any  other  necessity 
— then,  I  confess,  it  would  have  been  proper  to  rebuke 
me  for  resisting  a  necessity;  and  proper  to  put  me  to 
shame  by  pointing  me  to  the  faithful  editor  and 
physician,  who  yield  a  prompt  obedience  to  the  neces 
sities,  which  come  upon  them. 

I  denied,  that  the  three  o'clock  appointment  would 
have  been  a  necessity.  This  denial  is  abundantly  just 
ified  by  the  fact,  that  there  is  nothing  in  the  Nebraska 
bill  to  make  the  taking  of  the  vote  -on  it  necessary,  at 
any  time ;  and  by  the  further  fact,  that  if  there  is,  there, 
nevertheless,  remained  months  before  the  close  of  the 
session,  and  abundant  opportunity  for  the  transaction 
of  all  the  possible  business  of  Congress  by  daylight. 

I  might  dwell  on  many  objections  to  giving  my 
countenance  to  this  three  o'clock  appointment.  I  will 
detain  you  with  only  a  few  of  them;  and  with  but 
glances  at  these.  1.  Some  members  of  Congress  are, 
either  from  age  or.  other  causes,  too  feeble  to  be  com- 
17 


386  FINAL  LETTER  TO  HIS  CONSTITUENTS. 

pelled,  unless  in  a  case  of  absolute  necessity,  to  leave 
their  beds,  at  such  an  unusual  hour  for  leaving  them. 

2.  At  this  sleepy  hour,  few  persons   are   in  a  state 
for  the  wise  and  safe  transaction  of  important  business. 

3.  As  the  friend  of  temperance,  both  my  lips  and 
example  shall  ever  testify  against  any  night-session  of 
Congress,  that  is  not  called  for  by  the  clearest  necessity. 
What  if  the  majority  had   appointed  the  taking  of 
the  vote  on  the  Nebraska  question,  in  a  dramshop  ? 
Would  you  have  had  me  present?     I  trust  not.     But 
are  you,  yet,  to  learn,  that  the  scenes  of  a  night-session 
of  Congress  do  not,  always,  differ,  in  all  respects,  from 
the  scenes  of  a  dramshop  ?  I  was  present,  a  part  of  the 
night-session,  in  which  the  final  vote  on  the  Nebraska 
bill  was  taken;  and  I  was  well  convinced,  that  Con 
gress  should  avoid  all  unnecessary  night-sessions,  until 
Congress  loves  temperance  more,  and  rum  less.    Never 
did  I  witness  more  gross  drunkenness,  than  I  witnessed 
on  that  occasion.     I  had  to  remain  until  eleven  o'clock 
— for  I  had  to  remain,  until  I  could  record  my  vote 
against  the  pro-slavery  bill.      After  that,  I  hurried 
away,  full  of  shame  and  sorrow. 

It  so  happened,  that  Lord  Elgin,  the  Governor  of 
Canada,  sat  by  my  side,  for  an  hour  or  more,  during 
that  evening  of  sad  recollections.  The  drunkenness 
was  perceived  by  him,  as  well  as  by  myself.  I  might 
rather  say,  it  glared  upon  his  observation,  as  well  as 
upon  my  own.  It  was,  certainly,  very  polite  and  kind 


FINAL  LETTER  TO  HIS  CONSTITUENTS.  387 

in  him  to  tell  me,  as  lie  did,  in  the  course  of  our  con 
versation  respecting  this  disgraceful  scene,  that  he  had 
witnessed  shameful  disorder  in  the  British  Parliament. 
Nevertheless,  his  politeness  and  kindness  did  not 
relieve  me  of  my  deep  mortification. 

But,  I  shall,  perhaps,  be  told,  that  were  it,  once, 
understood,  that  the  friends  of  temperance,  and 
decency,  and  good  hours,  refuse  to  appear  in  Con 
gress,  the  latter  part  of  the  night;  advantage  would 
be  taken  of  the  refusal,  and  that  part  of  the  night 
would  be  chosen  for  mischievous  and  wicked  legisla 
tion.  This  supposes  two  things,  however,  neither  of 
which,  I  trust,  is  supposable.  It  supposes,  1st,  that 
a  majority  of  the  members  of  Congress  would  be 
guilty  of  such  an  outrage;  and,  2d,  that  the  people 
would  be  patient  under  it.  Had  the  Nebraska  bill 
been  passed  by  calling  us  from  our  beds  at  three 
o'clock,  the  people  would  have  seen,  in  this  disgrace 
ful  fact,  another  and  a  strong  reason  for  condemning 
this  bill  and  its  supporters. 

I  proceed  to  notice  another,  and,  so  far  as  I  know, 
the  only  other,,  passage  in  my  Congressional  history, 
that  has  provoked  the  public  censure.  I  spoke  in 
favor  of  annexing  Cuba  to  the  United  States: — and 
this,  too,  even  though  the  slavery  of  that  island  were 
not  previously  abolished.  For  having  so  spoken,  I 
have  seen  myself  held  up  in  the  newspapers  as  a  fili 
buster.  But  I  had  supposed  the  filibuster  to  be  one, 


388  FINAL  LETTER  TO  HIS  CONSTITUENTS. 

who  would  get  Cuba  either  by  violence  or  by  money . 
and,  in  the  speech  referred  to,  I  expressly  discarded 
both  these  means.  The  union  between  Cuba  and  the 
United  States,  which  I  approved,  is  peaceful,  and  with 
out  purchase.  It  is  to  take  place,  on  the  sole  condition 
of  the  choice  of  the  two  .parties — the  people  of  Cuba  and 
the  people  of  the  United  States.  Their  choice  of  the 
union  authorizes  the  union :  and,  that  too,  even  though 
all  other  peoples,  Spain  herself  included,  forbid  it. 
Indeed,  it  was  only  to  illustrate  the  leading  doctrine 
of  that  part  of  my  speech — the  doctrine,  that  peoples 
may  unite  and  divide,  as  themselves,  not  as  others, 
please — that  I  made  my  reference  to  Cuba. 

But  whom  do  I  mean  by  the  people  of  Cuba  ?  The 
public  suppose,  that  I  of  course,  mean  little  else  than 
the  handful  of  slaveholders,  aristocrats,  and  tyrants, 
upon  that  island.  But,  I  do  not  consent  to  be  conclud 
ed  by  their  supposition.  I  do  not  consent  to  wear  their 
spectacles,  nor  to  be  measured  by  their  measuring-line, 
nor  to  be  interpreted  by  their  laws  of  interpretation. 

It  is  now  more  than  a  dozen  years,  since  I  stood  up 
to  read,  in  a  very  large  assembly,  my  "  Address  to  the 
Slaves  of  the  United  States."  This  Address  acknow 
ledges  slaves  to  be  of  the  people,  and  of  equal  rights 
with  any  other  portion  of  the  people ;  and,  I  add,  that 
it,  therefore,  made  me  more  enemies  than  any  other 
paper  I  had  ever  written.  I  stop  not  now  to  justify 
anything  in  that  paper.  All  my  reason  for  referring 


FINAL  LETTER  TO  HIS  CONSTITUENTS.  389 

to  it  is,  to  say,  that,  whether  its  doctrines  are  true  or 
false,  they  should,  at  least,  serve  to  shield  me  from  the 
imputation  of  ignoring  slaves,  when  I  speak  of  the 
people.  Whomsoever  others  mean,  when  they  speak 
of  the  people  of  Cuba,  I  mean,  when  I  speak  of 
them,  the  black,  as  well  as  the  white — the  bond,  as 
well  as  the  free.  If  the  poor,  outraged  slaves  of  that 
island  prefer  to  be  identified  with  the  institutions,  for 
tunes,  and  prospects,  of  our  country,  such  preference 
should  be  allowed  to  weigh  as  much,  as  the  like  pre 
ference  of  any  other  equal  portion  of  her  people.  To 
say,  that  their  "poor,  poor,  dumb  mouths"  are  to  be 
unheeded,  and  that  they  are  to  be  denied  annexation 
to  the  people  of  the  United  States,  unless  their  slavery 
is  previously  abolished,  is  as  unreasonable,  as  to  say, 
that  the  Canadians  shall  not  be  annexed  to  us,  until 
the  land-monopoly,  which  oppresses  so  many  of  them, 
is  abolished.  The  calamities  of  neither  the  one,  nor 
the  other,  are  to  be  allowed  to  work  a  forfeiture  of 
their  rights. 

Now,  are  the  people  of  Cuba,  in  my  sense  of  the 
word  people,  in  favor  of  uniting  Cuba  with  our  na 
tion?  If  they  are,  then,  and  only  then,  so  far  as  Cuba 
is  concerned,  am  I  in  favor  of  it.  Are  the  people  of 
the  United  States  in  favor  of  it  ?  I  can  answer  for  but 
one  of  them  :  and  my  answer  is,  that  I  am.  Why  am 
I  ?  I  need  not  explain  why,  aside  from  the  existence 
of  slavery  in  Cuba,  I  am  in  favor  of  the  union — for, 


890  FINAL  LETTER  TO  HIS  CONSTITUENTS. 

aside  from  that,  who  are  not  in  favor  of  it  ?  It  is  from 
my  conclusion,  that  the  people  of  the  United  States 
should  be  willing  to  unite  with  the  people  of  Cuba, 
even  though  Cuban  slavery  be  not  previously  abolish 
ed,  that  so  many  dissent.  •  ... 

It  is  not  because  geographical,  and  commercial,  and 
various  kindred  considerations  do  so  loudly 'call  for  the 
blending  of  Cuba  with  our  country,  that,  in  spite  of 
my  being  an  abolitionist,  I  go  for  it.  It  is  because  I 
am  an  abolitionist,  more  than  because  I  am  anything 
else,  that  I  desire  this  blending. 

With  the  slaves  of  no  part  of  the  world  have  I  sym 
pathized  more  deeply  than  with  the  slaves  of  Cuba — 
for  theirs  is  the  cruellest  and  most  brutifying  of  all  the 
types  of  bondage.  Practically,  American  slavery  is 
not  so  bad  as  Spanish ;  though,  in  theory,  it  is  more 
absolute  and  abominable  than  any  other.  Happily  for 
its  victims,  American  slavery  encounters,  and  is  modi 
fied  by,  a  higher  civilization  than  that,  which  pervades 
the  dominions  of  Spain,  and  rejoices  in  bull-fights.  As 
an  abolitionist  then,  and  as  one,  who  feels  pity  for 
every  slave,  I  should  be  glad  to  see  the  condition  of 
the  slaves '  of  Cuba  bettered  by  the  substitution  of 
American  usages  and  American  influences  for  Spanish 
usages  and  Spanish  influences.  And  who  knows  but 
American  laws,  in  regard  to  slavery,  will,  ere  long,  be 
"  rightly  interpreted  ?"  The  hope,  (though  not  strong,) 
that  they  may  be,  and  the  fact,  that  thereby  American 


FINAL  LETTER  TO  HIS  CONSTITUENTS.  391 

slavery  would  be  "  short-lived,"  did  somewhat  encour 
age  me,  as  the  reader  of  the  speech  in  question  has 
seen,  "  to  risk  the  subjection  of  Cuban  slavery  to  a 
common  fate  with  our  own." 

Again,  as  an  abolitionist,  I  desire  the  annexation  of 
Cuba  to  our  country,  because  that  would  end  the  con 
nection  of  Cuba  with  the  African  slave  trade;  and 
would,  also,  go  far  to  end  that  trade,  everywhere.  I 
do  not  forget  the  charge,  that  American  slaveholders 
are  in  favor  of  reopening  that  trade  with  this  country. 
But,  I  know*  that  the  charge  is  nonsensical.  Not  only 
does  their  interest  forbid  it :  but  I  do  them  no  more 
than  justice  when  I  say,  that  their  civilization  forbids 
it.  They  have  outgrown  the  barbarism  of  the  African 
slave  trade.  May  they  speedily  outgrow  other  barbar 
isms,  which  fall  but  little  short  of  it ! 

I  said,  that,  for  having  made  the  speech  referred  to 
— I  mean  my  speech  on  the  Mexican  Treaty — the 
newspapers  have  called  me  a  "filibuster."  They  have 
called  me  "  pro-slavery"  also.  But  if  to  be  in  favor  of 
annexing  Cuba  to  our  nation  makes  me  "  pro-slavery" 
then  I  have  been  "pro-slavery"  for  years,  as  those  of 
you  know,  who,  for  years,  have  heard  me  speak  in 
favor  of  it.  I  readily  admit,  that  if  I  stood  on  the 
platform,  occupied  by  many  anti-slavery  men,  and  had 
a  creed  made  up  of  nothing  else  than  "  no  more  slave 
territory,"  I  should  deserve  to  be  stigmatized  as  "  pro- 
slavery"  for  consenting  to  have  Cuba  come  with  her 


392  FINAL   LETTER  TO   HIS  CONSTITUENTS. 

slavery  into  our  nation — for  then,  according  to  my  own 
creed,  I  should  be  "  pro-slavery."  But,  I  thank  God, 
that  he  has  not  left  me  to  take  my  stand  on  that  nar 
row  platform,  nor  on  any  other  like  it.  My  anti-slav 
ery  creed  recognizes  no  law,  anywhere,  for  the  highest 
possible  crime  against  the  interests,  and  rights,  and 
nature  of  man.  In  other  words,  I  know  no  law  for  the 
slavery,  which  exists  in  any  of  the  present,  or  which 
shall  exist,  in  any  of  the  future,  territory  of  this 
nation — no  law  for  the  enslavement  of  any  one, 
either  in  Cuba  or  America.  I  care  not  what  Statute- 
books,  or  even  Constitutions,  may  say  to  the  contrary. 
To  every  man,  who  has  a  soul  in  him — to  every  man, 
that  is  a  man — truth  and  honesty  are  infinitely  more 
authoritative  than  Statute-books  and  Constitutions : — 
and,  by  all,  that  is  precious  in  truth  and  honesty,  I  will 
never  enforce  as  law,  nor  even  know  as  law,  against 
another,  that  which,  if  applied  to  myself,  all,  that  is 
within  me,  would  scorn  and  scout  as  law. 

The  apprehension,  that  American  slavery  would  be 
made  strong  and  enduring  by  the  accession  of  Cuban 
slavery,  is  not  well  founded.  Such  a  new  element  in 
our  slavery  might,  for  various  reasons,  contribute  very 
effectively  to  work  the  ruin  of  the  whole.  But,  how 
ever  this  may  be,  who,  that  desires  the  overthrow  of 
American  slavery,  does  not  rejoice,  that  France  and 
England  and  other  nations  have,  in  our  day,  rid  them 
selves  of  slavery,  and  arrayed  their  influence,  if  not 


FINAL  LETTER  TO  HIS  CONSTITUENTS.  393 

designedly,  nevertheless  none  the  less  effectually, 
against  American  slavery  ?  And  who  of  them  should 
not  rejoice  to  see  Spain  also  quit  the  pro-slavery  party 
— the  party  of  pro-slavery  nations — to  join  the  anti- 
slavery  party,  and  the  party  of  anti-slavery  nations  ? 
But  to  rid  her  of  Cuba  is  thus  to  change  her  relations 
and  influence.  Let  all  the  other  nations  of  the  earth 
shake  themselves  of  slavery — even  though  it  be  into 
the  lap  of  America.  For  were  the  whole  of  the  foul 
thing  gathered  there,  no  sympathy  with  it  could  be 
found  elsewhere ;  and,  hence,  its  years  would  be  few. 

I  trust,  that,  in  the  light  of  what  I  have  said,  the 
injustice  of  calling  me  "  pro-slavery  "  will  be  apparent. 
Whilst  he  is  "pro-slavery,"  who  would  extend  slavery 
over  lands,  where  it  does  not  exist,  it  does  not  follow, 
that  he  is  "pro-slavery,"  either  in  the  aims,  or  in  the 
effect,  of  his  policy,  who  would  collect  more  of  exist 
ing  slavery  under  the  same  Government.  The  wish  of 
Caligula,  that  all  the  necks  of  the  Eomans  were  brought 
into  one  neck,  that  so  he  might  have  the  pleasure  of 
decapitating  his  subjects  at  a  single,  blow,  was  certainly 
not  a  very  amiable  wish.  But  we  would  all  excuse  the 
wish  to  have  all  the  necks  of  slavery  brought  into  one 
neck,  if  that  would  facilitate  the  killing  of  the  monster. 

"With  this  question  of  the  annexation  of  Cuba  our 

patriotism  has  much  to  do,  and  in  both  directions. 

Under  its  promptings,  there  are  many,  who  would  add 

to  the  honor  of  our  country,  by  adding  to  her  territory ; 

17* 


894  FINAL  LETTER  TO  HIS  CONSTITUENTS. 

and,  under  its  promptings,  there  are  quite  as  many, 
who  are  unwilling  to  add  to  her  dishonor,  by  adding 
to  her  slavery.  But  neither  in  the  one  case,  nor  in  the 
other,  are  the  promptings  of  patriotism  to  be  trusted. 
For  patriotism  is  not  a  virtue,  but  a  vice.  Least  of  all, 
is  it  a  Christian  grace.  In  all  that  compound  of  affec 
tions  and  interests,  called  patriotism,  there  is  not  one 
element,  which  finds  sanction  in  the  lips  or  life  of  Jesus 
Christ.  Admit,  if  you  please,  that  patriotism  does  not 
exhibit  the  most  revolting  forms  of  selfishness.  Never 
theless,  it  is  nothing,  even  in  its  most  attractive  phases, 
but  modifications  of  selfishness.  Philanthropy,  and 
not  patriotism,  should  be  permitted  to  decide  the  ques 
tion,  whether  we  are  at  liberty  to  receive  Cuba.  No 
pride  of  country,  and  no  shame,  that  stands  in  connec 
tion  with  such  pride,  should  be  allowed  any  part,  or 
influence,  in  the  decision.  Our  equal  love  to  our  bro 
ther,  whoever  he  may  be,  and  wherever  he  may  be ; 
whatever  his  complexion  or  condition ;  and  whether 
his  home  be  on  this  side,  or  on  that,  of  whatever 
national  boundary  ; — it  is  this  fraternal  love,  ever  indis- 
solubly  connected  with  true  filial  love  toward  his  and 
our  common  Father,  which  should,  alone,  be  allowed 
to  decide  the  question  whether,  if  Cuba  wishes  to  come 
to  us,  we  will  open  our  arms  to  receive  her. 

I  close  my  letter  with  saying,  that  it  is  not  the  great 
amount  of  slavery,  that  should  most  concern  us.  It  is 
rather  the  weakness  of  the  force,  arrayed  against  it. 


FINAL  LETTER  TO  HIS  CONSTITUENTS.  395 

Did  the  anti-slavery  men  of  our  country  occupy  the 
only  true  ground — the  ground,  that  there  cannot,  pos 
sibly,  be  any  Constitutional,  or  other  legal,  shelter  for 
slavery — the  ground,  that  the  piratical  system,  which 
robs  its  victims  of  every  right,  and  exposes  them  to 
every  wrong,  is,  necessarily,  an  outlaw — it  would  be 
comparatively  unimportant,  whether  they  had  much, 
or  little,  slavery  to  contend  with.  They  would,  surely 
and  speedily,  triumph,  in  either  case.  However  small 
the  amount  of  slavery,  it  will  last  forever,  so  far  as 
anti-slavery  men  are  concerned,  provided  they  continue 
to  acknowledge  its  legality,  and  to  busy  themselves  in 
the  folly  of  setting  limits  to  this  rampant,  vaulting, 
matchless  crime.  On  the  other  hand,  however  large 
the  amount  of  slavery,  it  would  quickly  disappear 
before  the  influences,  which  the  anti-slavery  men  would 
muster  against  it,  were  they  to  take  the  position,  that, 
within  no  limits,  not  even  the  narrowest,  has  slavery 
any  rights,  or  can  it  have  any ;  and  that  within  no 
limits,  not  even  the  narrowest,  does  it  deserve  anything 
better  than  the  sentence  of  outlawry  and  death,  at  the 
.  hands  of  all  mankind. 

Let  the  anti-slavery  men  of  our  country  take  this 
position,  and  they  will  be  no  more  afraid,  than  I  am, 
to  have  Cuban  slavery  come  to  us.  Nay,  they  will 
then  bid  it  come :  for  they  will  then  know,  that  if  it 
do  come,  it  will  come,  not  to  be  wedded  to  our  slavery, 


396  FINAL   LETTER   TO   HIS   CONSTITUENTS. 

but  to  die  with,  it :  that  it  will  come,  not  to  a  bridal; 
but  a  burial. 

Very  respectfully,  yours, 

G-ERRIT  SMITH. 


THE  following  extract  from  a  letter  of  Mr.  Smith  to 
Wendell  Phillips,  dated  February  20, 1855,  is  a  further 
defence  of  his  position  in  regard  to  the  annexation  of 
Cuba  to  the  United  States. 

"  The  type  of  slavery  in  Cuba  is,  in  some  respects, 
more  terrible  than  in  any  other  part  of  the  world. 
The  family  relation,  which,  elsewhere,  softens  the 
horrors  of  slavery,  is  to  a  great  extent,  unknown 
among  the  slaves  of  Cuba.  The  breeding  of  our  own 
slaves  is  an  alleviating  feature  in  our  slavery:  and 
slavery  is  light  in  the  breeding  States,  compared  with 
what  it  is  in  the  other  States.  Plantation  after  planta 
tion  in  Cuba  has  hundreds  of  males,  and  scarcely  one 
female.  The  condition  and  character  of  the  laborers 
on  such  plantations  are,  therefore,  as  brutal,  as  they 
well  can  be.  Again,  so  severe  is  the  treatment  of  the 
Cuban  slaves,  that  they  die  under  it,  in  a  few  years. 
The  slaves  of  our  own  country  live,  on  an  average, 
more  than  thirtv  years.  The  slaves  of  Cuba  much  less 


LETTER  TO   WENDELL  PHILLIPS.  397 

than  half  that  time :  and,  hence,  as  I  pity  them,  I  -would 
have  Cuba  annexed.  I  would  have  her  annexed  too, 
as  I  pity  Africa,  who  is,  every  year,  robbed  of  thou 
sands  of  her  children  to  supply  the  murderous  waste 
of  life  in  Cuba.  But,  more  than  all,  do  I  desire  the 
annexation,  because  I  believe  it  will  contribute,  mighti 
ly,  to  the  overthrow  of  the  whole  system  of  American 
slavery. 

"1.  It  will  change  Spain  into  an  anti-slavery  nation : 
and,  then,  not  only  will  she  be  arrayed  against  Ameri 
can  slavery,  but  other  nations — especially  France  and 
England — disembarrassed  by  her  change,  will  be  far 
more  cordially  and  effectively  arrayed  against  it  than 
they  have  hitherto  been. 

"2.  The  Spanish  troops,  that,  now,  uphold  slavery  in 
Cuba,  will,  then,  be  recalled ;  and  the  Creole  population 
of  more  than  half  a  million  will,  then,  be  the  depend 
ence  for  maintaining  slavery.  But  that  population, 
never  having  possessed  political  power,  and,  therefore, 
ignorant  how  to  use  it ;  having  strong  sympathies  with 
the  quarter  of  a  million  of  free  blacks,  both  from  being 
legally  intermarried  with  them  to  a  considerable  extent, 
and  from  having  but  little  more  intelligence,  (for  the 
free  blacks  have  schools,)  and  also  from  other  causes; 
would  be  but  a  poor  dependence  for  maintaining  slavery. 
Indeed,  where  have  Spanish  Creoles  proved  their  readi 
ness  and  ability  to  uphold  slavery  ?  Certainly  not  in 
Mexico  and  the  South- American  States.  There  they 


398  LETTER  TO  WENDELL  PHILLIPS. 

proved  themselves  to  be  abolitionists,  after  they  had 
escaped  from  the  control  of  the  Spaniards.  The  truth 
is,  that  the  Spanish  Creoles  are  too  nearly  on  a  level 
with  the  free  blacks,  in  point  of  circumstances  and  in 
telligence,  and,  therefore,  of  power,  to  be  relied  on  to 
uphold  slavery.  There  must,  in  some  important  re 
spects,  be  a  wide  space  between  masters  and  slaves,  or 
the  slaves  cannot  be  kept  in  subjection. 

"3.  Cuban  slavery  is  so  different  a  thing  from  Amer 
ican  slavery,  that  it  cannot  coexist  with  it,  unless 
brought  into  conformity  with  it.  But  to  attempt  the 
conformity  would  be  most  strongly  to  invite  an  insur 
rection.  The  Cuban  slave  has  the  legal  right  to  go, 
every  year,  in  quest  of  a  new  master.  Moreover,  it 
rests  with  an  officer  of  the  Government  to  fix  his  price, 
in  case  of  disagreement  on  that  point.  He  has  the  legal 
right  to  buy  himself — to  buy  himself,  all  at  once,  or,  in 
parts — a  quarter  at  one  time,  and  a  half  at  another — 
as  is  most  convenient  for  him.  Then,  again,  if  the 
slave-mother  shall  pay  a  small  sum  (I  believe  but 
twenty-five  dollars,)  before  the  birth  of  her  child,  the 
child  shall  be  free.  Now,  will  the  slaves — will  the  free 
blacks — will  the  Creoles — suffer  these  merciful  features 
to  be  expunged  from  the  system  of  Cuban  slavery? 
Certainly  not,  until  much  blood  has  been  spilt.  I  add, 
will  the  free  blacks  suffer  their  schools  to  be  closed  ? — 
for  the  closing  of  them  will  be  an  indispensable  part  of 
the  conformity  of  Cuban  slavery  to  American  slaverv. 


LETTER  TO  WENDELL  PHILLIPS.  399 

"4.  But  it  will  be  said,  that  if  a  standing  army  of 
twenty  or  thirty  thousand  Spanish  troops  can  maintain 
slavery  in  Cuba,  so,  also,  can  a  no  greater  standing 
American  army  maintain  it  there.  A  several  times 
greater  army  than  this  will  be  required  to  sustain  the 
attempt  to  impart  to  Cuban  slavery  the  absolute  cha 
racter  of  our  slavery.  Arouse  the  hostility  of  the  free 
blacks,  among  whom  are  men  of  genius  and  educa 
tion  ;  combine  with  them  the  nearly  half  million  of 
slaves,  the  very  large  majority  of  whom  are  from  Africa, 
and  are  as  barbarous,  as  when  they  left  her  shores; 
and  the  victory  to  be  achieved  by  our  standing  army 
would  be  no  easy  one.  A  bloody  grave  for  slavery 
did  these  classes  of  men  dig  in  St.  Domingo  :  and  a  no 
less  bloody  one  may  they  dig  for  slavery  in  Cuba. 
Moreover,  that  grave  may  be  capacious  enough  for  the 
whole  of  American  slavery.  Let  our  infatuated  slave 
power  get  Cuba,  if  it  can.  I  greatly  mistake,  if  when 
she  shall  have  added  these  new  elements  to  our  popula 
tion,  she  does  not  find,  that  she  has  got  more  than  she 
.contracted  for.  Ere  leaving  this  head,  I  will  say,  that, 
to  propose,  in  the  event  of  the  annexation  of  Cuba,  a 
standing  army  for  the  maintenance  of  her  slavery,  is 
sheer  nonsense.  The  days  of  our  slavery,  if  not,  in 
deed,  of  our  republic  will  be  numbered,  whenever  we 
shall  adopt  the  policy  of  a  standing  army  for  uphold 
ing  slavery. 

"5.   Havana  is  Cuba,  as   emphatically  as  Paris  is 


400  LETTER  TO   WENDELL   PHILLIPS 

France.  Admit,  that  quietness — although,  by  the 
way,  it  is  an  ever  fearful  and  anxious  quietness — is 
maintained  there.  We  should,  nevertheless,  remember, 
that  it  is  maintained  only  by  means  of  such  a  strict 
and  stern  police,  and  such  an  iron  despotism,  as  would 
be  impossible,  amidst  the  institutions  and  influence  of 
our  republic.  Impose  only  repuolican  restraints  upon 
Havana,  and  anarchy  would  quick  spread  through  her, 
and  through  the  island. 

"6.  Let  it  not  be  said,  that,  because  the  slaves  of 
Louisiana  and  Florida  passed  quietly  into  our  political 
jurisdiction,  the  slaves  of  Cuba  will,  also.  Not  to 
speak  of  essential  differences  in  their  circumstances,  the 
former  slaves  were  but  a  handful,  compared  with  the 
latter. 

"I  say  no  more  of  the  annexation  of  Cuba.  "Whilst  I 
hope,  that  it  would  help  work  the  overthrow  of  slavery, 
without  violence ;  I  am  confident,  that  it  would  help 
work  it,  in  some  way." 


LETTER 

TO 

FREDERICK    DOUGLASS. 

[This  letter  was  published  by  Mr.  Douglass  in  his  newspaper.] 

PETERBORO,  August  28,  1854. 

FREDERICK  DOUGLASS  : 

My  Dear  Friend: — I  see,  in  your  last  paper,  your 
letter  to  myself.  I  shall  take  great  pleasure  in  answer 
ing  your  questions,  since  you  are  of  the  number  of 
those,  whose  wishes  I  am  especially  glad  to  gratify. 

1.  As  you  are  aware,  I  went  to  Congress  with 
very  little  hope  of  the  peaceful  termination  of  Ameri 
can  slavery.  I  have  returned  with  less.  I  still  see  no 
evidence,  that  the  North  will  act  effectually  for  such 
termination — for  I  still  see  no  evidence,  that  it  will  act 
honestly  for  it.  It  is  true,  that  I  learn  of  anti-Nebras 
ka  indignation  meetings,  all  over  the  North.  But  this 
does  not  greatly  encourage  me.  It  is  repentance,  not 
indignation,  which  the  North  needs  to  feel,  and  to 


402  LETTER  TO   FREDERICK  DOUGLASS. 

manifest.  It  becomes  not  the  North,  to  be  angry  with 
the  South  about  the  Nebraska  bill,  or  about  any  other 
pro-slavery  thing.  Her  duty  is  to  confess  her  shame 
and  sorrow,  that  her  political,  ecclesiastical,  and  com 
mercial  influence  has  gone  to  uphold  slavery,  and  to 
deceive  the  but-too-willing-to-be-deceived  South  into 
the  belief,  that  slavery  is  right,  or,  at  least,  excusable. 
Had  there  been  such  confession,  there  would  have  been 
no  Nebraska  bill  to  get  angry  about,  or  to  make  party" 
capital  of.  Had  there  been  such  confession,  the  South 
would  have  no  heart  to  extend  slavery.  All  her  con 
cern  would  have  been  to  abolish  it. 

Now,  for  the  North  to  be  honest  in  the  matter  of 
slavery,  is  to  treat  it  as  they  would  any  other  great 
crime ;  and,  therefore,  to  deny,  that  there  can  be  a  law 
for  it.  It  is,  in  a  word,  to  do  unto  others,  in  that 
matter,  as  they  would  have  others  do  unto  them,  in 
it.  Do  the  people  of  the  North  believe,  that  they 
would  honor  and  obey  slavery,  as  law,  should  it  ever 
lay  claim  to  their  own  necks?  If  they  do  not,  then 
they  are  dishonest,  in  acknowledging  it  to  be  law,  when 
others  are  its  victims. 

Is  it  said,  that  the  honesty,  which  I  here  commend, 
would  exasperate  the  South?  I  answer,  that  it  would 
go  far  to  conquer  the  South.  Let  the  North  say:  "We 
have  sinned  against  our  enslaved  brother,  in  acknow 
ledging,  that  the  immeasurable  crime  against  him  is 
capable  of  the  obligations  and  sacredness  of  law. 


LETTER  TO  FEEDEEICK  DOUGLASS.  403 

We  will  do  so  no  more — whatever  Constitutions  and 
Statutes  may  require  of  us,  and  however  great  the 
losses  we  may  suffer  in  our  trade,  and  in  our  political 
and  religious  party  connexions."  Let  the  North  speak 
such  words  of  penitence  and  principle — and  the  South 
will  listen.  "When  the  Northern  heart  begins  to  melt, 
the  Southern  heart,  also,  will  begin  to  melt. 

It  is  demonstrations  of  our  honesty,  not  of  our  cun 
ning,  which  are  needed  to  influence  and  convert  the 
South.  The  tricks,  which  Northern  Legislatures  have 
resorted  to,  or  threatened  to  resort  to,  for  the  purpose  of 
evading,  or  nullifying,  the  fugitive  servant  clause  of  the 
Constitution  and  the  fugitive  servant  statutes  of  Con 
gress,  can  have  no  tendency  to  inspire  the  South  either 
with  the  fear  of  us,  or  the  love  of  us.  I  need  not  say  it 
for  the  ten  thousandth  time — that  my  eyes  detect  no 
slavery  in  the  Constitution,  and  that  I  utterly  deny, 
that  the  attempt  to  smuggle  slavery  into  it  was,  at  all, 
successful.  But  the  great  mass  of  the  Northern  people 
widely  disagree  with  me,  at  this  point;  and,  hence, 
what  is  required  of  them  by  the  spirit  of  truth  and  the 
Grod  of  truth  is,  not  to  practice  indirection  and  fraud, 
but  frankly  to  acknowledge,  that  the  South  has  their 
bond,  and  that  so  wicked  is  the  bond,  that  conscience 
constrains  them  to  refuse,  at  whatever  hazard,  to  fulfil 
it. 

I  referred  to  the  fact,  that  my  hope  of  the  bloodless 
termination  of  American  slavery  is  less  now  than  it 


4:04  LETTER  TO  FREDERICK  DOUGLASS. 

was,  when  I  went  to  Congress.  I  confess,  that  I  did 
hope  to  find  some  Southern  men  there,  who  are  willing 
to  aid  in  bringing  about  such  a  termination.  But  I 
found  none  of  them,  who  are  willing  to  lift  so  much,  as 
a  finger,  to  this  end.  A  few  Southern  members  of 
Congress  seek,  by  means  of  nonsensical  and  wicked 
speculations  on  the  nature  of  the  African  and  on  the 
Divine  purposes,  to  persuade  themselves,  that  slavery  is 
right  in  itself.  As  a  matter  of  course,  such  contend, 
that  slavery  should  endure  forever.  But  even  with  the 
mass  of  them,  the  case  is  very  little  more  hopeful.  It  is 
true,  that  they  admit,  that  slavery  is,  in  itself,  an  evil. 
But  they  will  do  nothing  to  put  an  end  to  it.  They 
had  rather  amuse  themselves  with  the  notion,  that 
Colonization  will  drain  it  off,  or  with  some  other  equal 
ly  great  absurdity — if,  indeed,  there  is,  or  can  be,  any 
other  as  great.  The  more,  however,  that  I  know  of 
this  class  of  Southern  men,  the  more  satisfied  I  am, 
that  even  those  of  them,  who  are  the  most  deeply  con 
vinced  of  the  wrongfulness  of  slavery,  regard  the  evil 
as  too  formidable  for  their  little  courage  to  grapple 
with.  They  are  cowed  in  the  presence  of  its  magni 
tude  :  and  they  prefer  to  let  it  roll  on  to  an  indefinite 
future,  and  to  a  posterity,  which,  they  hope,  will  have 
more  advantages  than  now  exist,  for  happily  disposing 
of  it. 

2.  You  ask,  if  the  anti-slavery  cause  has  anything 
to  hope  for  from  the  present  Congress.     It  has  not. 


LETTER  TO  FREDERICK  DOUGLASS.  405 

What  can  Liberty  hope  from  a  Congress,  that  commits 
so  heinous  a  crime  against  her,  as  to  pass  the  Nebraska 
bill  ?  What  from  a  House  of  ^Representatives,  not  fifty 
members  of  which  dared  to  say,  that  they  were  in  favor 
of  repealing  the  Fugitive  Slave  Act  ? 

3.  You  wish  my  opinions  of  the  influence  of  the 
anti-slavery  members  of  Congress.  I  had  rather  give 
you  my  opinions  of  the  members;  and,  then,  you  can 
judge  for  yourself  what  must  be  the  character  and 
extent  of  the  influence,  which  they  exert.  I  take  it 
for  granted,  that  you  mean  by  anti-slavery  members 
those  only,  who  are  known  as  abolitionists,  and  who 
accept  the  reproach  of  being  abolitionists. 

Chase  is  wise,  learned,  upright.  He  is  an  able 
lawyer  and  an  able  statesman.  His  range  of  thought 
and  information  is  wide ;  and,  even  without  special 
preparation,  he  can  speak  well  on  the  subjects,  that 
come  before  him. 

Sumner  is  not  so  ready  and  versatile,  as  Chase. 
But  put  into  his  hands  a  subject,  which  interests  his 
heart — Peace  or  Freedom,  for  instance — and  give  him 
time  to  elaborate  it — and  where  is  the  man,  who  can 
speak  or  write  better?  Sumner  is  as  guileless  and 
ingenuous  as  a  child:  and,  hence,  my  astonishment 
at  the  base  and  ferocious  feeling  manifested  toward 
him,  at  one  period  of  the  session.  Chase  and  Sumner 
are  gentlemen — Christian  gentlemen.  Great  is  my  love 
of  them:  and  were  I  to  add,  ''passing  the  love  of 


406  LETTER  TO   FREDERICK  DOUGLASS. 

women,"  I  should  not  be  guilty  of  great  extrava 
gance. 

Gillette  has  been  in  the  Senate  but  a  short  time : — 
long  enough,  however,  to  give  evidence,  that  he  has 
a  sound  head  and  a  sound  heart.  He  loves  the  anti- 
slavery  cause,  as  well  as  Chase  and  Sumner;  and  sur 
passes  them  in  zeal  for  the  no  less  precious  cause  of 
temperance. 

To  come  to  the  abolitionists  in  the  House.  All 
know  "Old  Giddings."  An  able  man  is  he.  His 
rough,  strong,  common  sense  is  worth  infinitely  more 
than  the  refinement  and  polish  of  which  so  many  light- 
minded  men  are  vain.  He  is  ready  and  powerful  in 
debate.  An  honest  and  fearless  man,  too,  is  he.  I 
shall  never  forget  the  many  proofs  which  I  witnessed 
of  his  unflinching  devotion  to  the  right  and  the  true. 
If  his  severity  upon  slaveholders  is,  sometimes,  excess 
ive,  nevertheless  it  is  not  for  them  to  complain  of  it- 
He  learned  it  of  them.  Or,  to  say  the  least,  it  is  a 
very  natural  retaliation  for  the  wrongs  and  outrages, 
which,  for  a  dozen  or  fifteen  years,  they  have  been 
industriously  heaping  upon  him.  Greatly  do  I  rejoice 
to  see  that  the  friends  of  freedom  have  taken  him  up 
for  another  election  to  Congress.  They  honor  them 
selves  in  honoring  him.  There  should  not  be  one  vote 
against  him. 

I  must  not  fail  to  advert,  in  this  connexion,  to  my 
great  obligations  to  Mr.  Giddings  for  the  assistance, 


LETTER   TO   FREDERICK  DOUGLASS.  407 

which  he  so  kindly  and  generously  afforded  me,  in  my 
ignorance  of  the  rules  of  the  House. 

"We  turn,  next,  to  Edward  "Wade,  of  Ohio.  A  stranger, 
looking  over  the  House,  would  make  no  account  of 
that  black  little  fellow,  who  sits  in  one  corner  of  it. 
But  let  -him  read  Edward  Wade's  remarkably  strong 
speech  On  the  Nebraska  bill,  or  hear  one  of 'his  pithy 
five  minutes  speeches,  and  he  will  find  that  he  has 
another  occasion  for  applying  the  Saviour's  injunction  : 
"Judge  not  according  to  the  appearance."  Wade  is  an 
eminently  conscientious  and  religious  man.  I  am  glad 
to  see,  that  he,  too,  is  nominated  for  another  election  to 
Congress*  He  should  be,  as  often  as  he  is  willing 
to  take  the  nomination. 

Colonel  DeWitt  of  Massachusetts  was  sick  much 
of  the  session.  All,  who  were  so  fortunate,  as  to 
become  acquainted  with  him,  were  impressed  with  his 
good  sense,  generous  disposition,  and  agreeable  man 
ners. 

As  Davis  of  Ehode  Island  was  chosen  by  the  Demo 
cratic  party,  that  party  may  not  thank  me  for  calling 
him  an  abolitionist.  Nevertheless,  he  is  one.  He  has 
a  brother's  heart  for  every  human  being,  and  that 
makes  him  an  abolitionist.  I  sat  next  to  him,  during 
the  whole  session  :  and  I  esteemed  it  no  small  privilege 
to  sit,  for  so  long  a  time,  by  the  side  of  one,  who  is  so 
sincere,  so  affectionate,  so  philanthropic.  Davis  is  a 
plain,  but  forcible,  speaker.  The  city  of  Providence 


408  LETTER  TO  FREDERICK  DOUGLASS, 

owes  Mm  nrncli  for  Ms  effective  speeches  in  behalf  of  a 
large  (perhaps,  too  large)  appropriation  for  building 
her  custom-house. 

I  have,  now,  spoken  of  all  the  abolitionists  in 
Congress,  save  myself:  and,  since,  in  the  judgment  of 
many,  I  have  fallen  from  abolition  grace,  I  had  better 
not  speak  of  myself.  Do  not  exult  over  my  apostacy. 
Even  you,  though  a  literally  "  died  in  the  wool"  aboli 
tionist,  should  rather  be  admonished  by  my  apostacy  to 
take  heed  lest  you  yourself  fall. 

4.  In  answer  to  your  fourth  question,  I  would 
say,  that  all  the  members  of  Congress,  who  belong  to 
the  WMg  or  Democratic  party,  are  necessarily  "  sup 
porters  of  slavery."  Every  national  party  in  tMs  coun 
try  must  be  pro-slavery.  The  South  will  come  into  no 
party,  and  abide  in  no  party,  that  is  anti-slavery.  I 
cheerfully  admit,  that  there  is  many  a  Whig,  and  that 
there  is  many  a  Democrat,  earnestly  anti-slavery. 
Nevertheless,  their  individual  influence  against  slavery 
is  as  nothing  compared  with  their  party  influence  for  it. 
As  well  may  a  man,  with  a  mill-stone  tied  to  his  neck, 
try  to  save  his  drowning  fellows,  as  a  Whig  or  a  Demo 
crat  try,  under  his  heavy  pro-slavery  load,  to  promote 
the  anti-slavery  cause.  His  anti-slavery  endeavors, 
however  sincere,  are  all  frustrated  by  Ms  pro-slavery 
party  connexion:  and  that  connexion  must  be  dis 
solved  ere  he  can  give  effect  to  those  endeavors. 
Our  national  parties,  ecclesiastical,  as  well  as  political, 


LETTER  TO  FEEDEEICK  DOUGLASS.  409 

once  abolished  and  the  peaceful  death  of  slavery  would 
be  a  speedy  event.  But  the  great  reason,  why  we  are 
denied  the  prospect  of  this  happy  event,  is  that  the 
members  of  these  parties  love  them,  too  well,  and  are 
too  far  under  their  infatuating  influence,  to  consent 
to  their  abolition. 

5.  I  proceed  to  answer  your  last  inquiry.  There 
are  in  the  House  a  number  of  gentlemen  of  remarkable 
capacity  and  training  for  the  transaction  of  business. 
Conspicuously  among  them  are  Haven  of  New- York 
and  Orr  of  South-Carolina,  and  Phelps  of  Missouri — 
all  three  of  whom  are  not  only  judicious,  and  clear 
headed,  but  swift,  in  business.  Breckenridge  of  Ken 
tucky  is,  perhaps,  behind  none  of  them.  He  gave  us 
but  few  specimens  of  his  powers.  They  were  suffi 
cient,  however,  to  prove,  that  his  very  keen  and  vigor 
ous  intellect  is  habituated  to  business.  Judging  from 
the  admirable  discharge  of  his  duties,  as  Speaker,  Boyd 
of  Kentucky  must  be,  in  all  respects,  one  of  the  best 
business  men  in  the  House.  Letcher  of  Virginia, 
and  Jones  of  Tennessee,  are  as  expert  in  stopping 
business,  as  any  members  of  the  House  are  in  doing  it : 
and  to  stop  business  is,  oftentimes,  more  meritorious 
and  useful  than  to  do  it. 

Chandler  of  Pennsylvania,  is  prominent  among  the 
scholars  of  the  House.  Judge  Perkins  of  Louisiana, 
struck  me  as  a  gentleman  of  very  great  refinement, 
both  in  mind  and  manner.  F.  P.  Stanton  has  a  rich 
and  beautiful  mind.  Its  turn  is  as  speculative,  as 
18 


410  LETTER   TO   FREDERICK   DOUGLASS. 

B.  H.  Stanton's  is  practical.  The  former  of  these  bro 
thers  lives  in  Tennessee.  The  latter  in  Kentucky. 
With  the  single  exception  of  Bichard,  who  is  all  facts 
and  figures,  the  whole  Stanton  family,  in  several  of  its 
generations,  is  highly  poetical. 

The  House  can  boast  of  wits,  also.  Ewing  of  Ken 
tucky,  is  inferior  to  none  of  them. 

I  could  name  several  members  of  the  House  who  are 
decidedly  eloquent.  Grov.  Smith  of  Virginia,  with  his 
lively  mind,  smooth  and  ready  utterance,  and  various 
other  qualities,  must  be  very  effective  "  on  the  stump." 
I  wish  Banks  of  Massachusetts,  would  lay  hold  of 
themes  worthy  of  his  fine  powers  of  oratory.  He  would 
find  it  easier  to  be  eloquent  on  them  than  on  inferior 
subjects.  Indeed,  a  great  cause  is  itself  eloquence ;  and 
the  most,  which  he,  who  speaks  for  it,  needs  to  do,  is  to 
stand  out  of  its  way,  and  let  it  speak  for  itself. 

Benton  in  respect  to  his  remarkable  fulness  of  politi 
cal  knowledge,  and,  in  some  other  respects  also,  is,  of 
course,  the  great  man  of  the  House.  But  he  is  not  the 
only  strong  man  there.  There  are  more  than  twenty 
in  that  body,  who  deserve  to  be  called  strong  men. 
There  is  no  lack  of  talent  in  it.  I  wish  I  could  add, 
that  there  is  no  lack  of  morals  and  manners  in  it.  But, 
whilst  some  of  the  members  are  emphatically  gentle 
men,  in  their  spirit  and  in  their  personal  habits,  there 
are  more  of  them  who  use  profane  language,  or  defile 
themselves  with  tobacco,  or  poison  themselves  with 
rum.  I  trust,  that  the  day  has  already  dawned,  in 


LETTER  TO   FREDERICK   DOUGLASS.  411 

which  it  will*  not' be  allowed,  that  gentlemen  can  be 
guilty  of  such  coarse  and  insulting  wickedness,  of  such 
sheer  nastiness,  and  of  such  low  and  mad  sensuality. 
You  were  a  slave,  until  you  had  reached  manhood. 
Hence,  the  world  is  surprised,  that  you  have  risen  into 
the  highest  class  of  public  writers  and  public  speakers. 
It  is  no  less  cause  of  surprise,  however,  that  you  are 
a  dignified  and  refined  gentleman.  Nevertheless, 
gentleman,  and  scholar,  and  orator,  as  you  are,  there 
are  strenuous  objections  to  your  taking  your  seat  in 
Congress.  How  ludicrous  a  figure,  in  the  eye  of  rea 
son,  is  that  member  of  Congress  (and  there  are  more 
than  fifty  such !)  who,  in  one  breath,  swears,  that  he 
would  not  so  disgrace  himself;  as  to  sit  by  the  side  of 
"  Fred.  Douglass ; "  and  who,  in  the  next  breath,  squirts 
his  tobacco  juice  upon  the  carpet ! 

I  became  pretty  well  acquainted  with  nearly  all  the 
members  of  the  House.  In  very  many  of  them  there 
was  much  to  please  me— much,  indeed,  to  win  my 
affectionate  regards.  Nevertheless,  I  could  not  be  blind 
to  the  glaring  fact,  that  Congress  preeminently  needs 
to  witness  the  achievements  of  the  Temperance  reform 
ation,  and  the  Tobacco  reformation,  and  the  religion 
of  Jesus  Christ.  Your  friend, 

G-ERRIT  SMITH. 


LETTER 


TO 


HON.     H.     C.     GOODWIN. 

THE  session  that  Mr.  Smith,  was  in  Congress,  a  bill 
was  reported  in  favor  of  the  sufferers  from  French 
spoliations.  Mr.  Smith  took  a  deep  interest  in  it,  and 
hoped  that  it  might  be  acted  upon  before  the  close  of 
the  Session.  But  he  hoped  in  vain.  The  protracted 
discussion  on  the  Nebraska  bill  shut  out  many  other 
discussions.  The  following  letter  indicates  Mr.  Smith's 
opinion  of  the  merits  of  the  French  spoliation  bill. 

PETERBOHO,  January  5,  1855. 

HON.  H.  C.  GOODWIN,  M.  C. : 

Dear  Sir :— I  am  happy  to  see,  in  the  proceedings  of 
the  House  of  Eepresentatives,  the  proposition  to  take 
up  the  bill  for  the  relief  of  the  sufferers  by  French 
spoliations.  I  am  not  among  these  sufferers :  and,  I 
do  not  know,  that  I  have  a  relative  among  them. 
Nevertheless,  I  deeply  desire  the  success  of  the  bill. 


414  LETTER  TO   HON.   H.    C.   GOODWIN-. 

Pardon  me  for  asking  you,  to  inquire  into  the  merits 
of  the  bill,  if  you  have  not  done  so  already.  I  confess, 
that  I  am  all  the  more  free  to  take  this  liberty,  not 
only  from  the  fact,  that  you  represent  my  Congressional 
District,  but  from  the  fact,  that  you  occupy  the  seat, 
which  the  pressure  of  my  far  too  extensive  private 
business  compelled  me  to  resign. 

We  must  remember  the  condition  of  our  country  in 
1778,  in  order  to  estimate  rightly  the  value  to  her  of 
the  treaties,  which  she  made  with  France,  in  that  year. 
The  American  cause  was  then  struggling  through  its 
darkest  period ;  and,  unless  help  should  come,  it  could 
never  emerge.  Help  did  come — timely  and  abundant 
help.  Those  treaties  brought  it.  France  joined  hands 
with  us.  Our  liberty  was  achieved : — and  the  Ameri 
cans,  like  the  delivered  Jews,  "  had  light  and  gladness 
and  joy  and  honor." 

But  the  deliverance  of  our  country  did  not  suffice  to 
fulfill  all  the  obligations  of  those  treaties.  We  were 
bound  to  France,  as  strongly  as  France  was  bound  to 
us.  France  had  served  us :  and  it  was,  now,  our  turn 
to  serve  her.  But  to  serve  her,  as  the  treaties  requir 
ed  us  to  serve  her,  could  only  be  at  vast  expense  to 
ourselves. 

France  stood  faithfully  by  us,  and  expended,  in  our 
cause,  much  blood,  and  some  two  or  three  hundred 
millions  of  dollars.  But  when  the  hour  of  her  necessi 
ties  came,  we  did  not  stand  by  her,  as  our  Treaties  re- 


LETTER  TO  HON.   H.   C.   GOODWIN.  415 

quired  us  to  do.  She  had  abundant  cause  to  complain 
of  us.  But  I  admit,  that  she,  soon  after,  afforded  us 
as  abundant  cause  to  complain  of  her.  She  pirated 
upon  our  ships,  and  plundered  our  commerce.  Not 
ten  millions — perhaps  not  twenty  millions — could  mea 
sure  the  damage,  which  she  thus  did  us.  It  is  true, 
that  she  committed  this  crime,  under  great  urgency— 
under  temptations  not  easily  resisted.  Europe  was 
combined  against  her:  and  she  robbed  our  ships  to 
save  herself  from  starving.  It  is  true,  too,  that  she, 
always,  confessed  the  crime ;  and,  always,  promised  re 
paration,  when  she  should  be  in  circumstances  to  make 
it.  It  is,  also,  true,  that  she  did  provide  for  it.  She 
provided  for  it,  by  releasing  us  from  our  obligations  to 
herself,  in  consideration  of  our  releasing  her  from  the 
claims  of  our  citizens,  whom  she  had  plundered.  She 
ceased  to  be  the  debtor  of  those  citizens  :  and  our  na 
tion  became  such  debtor,  in  her  stead.  Our  nation 
came  into  this  relation,  by  virtually  taking  private  pro 
perty  to  pay  a  national  debt — her  debt  to  France.  I 
do  not  complain  of  her  for  doing  so.  I  complain  of 
her  dishonesty,  in  never  paying  for  this  private  proper 
ty.  Eepeatedly,  has  she  been  called  on  for  payment, 
both  by  those,  who  lost  the  property,  and  by  their 
children  and  children's  children.  Oftentimes,  they 
have  come  near  success.  Once,  the  bill  for  their  relief 
passed  both  Houses  of  Congress :  and  the  chief  reason, 
if  I  recollect,  why  the  President  vetoed  it,  was,  that 


416  LETTER   TO   HON.    H.    C.    GOODWIN. 

we  needed  all  the  money  in  the  Treasury  for  prosecut 
ing  our  war  with  Mexico.  I  trust,  that  the  time  has 
now  come,  when  these  petitioners  for  so  long  delayed, 
so  obvious,  and  so  needed,  justice  will  succeed  in  ob 
taining  it. 

But  there  are  objections  to  the  payment  of  the  claims 
in  question.  The  first  is,  that  were  the  claims  valid, 
they  would  have  been  paid,  half  a  century  ago.  But 
we  must  bear  in  mind  the  poverty,  indebtedness,  and 
various  embarrassments  of  our  new-born  nation,  during 
the  first  part  of  the  present  century.  It  was  as  difficult 
to  pay  our  debts  then,  as  it  is  now  easy.  Moreover,  it 
must  not  be  forgotten,  that  the  principal  proofs  of  the 
validity  of  these  claims  lay  undiscovered  among  the 
files  of  the  State  Department,  for  some  twenty-five 
years.  Had  these  proofs  been  brought  to  light,  when 
we  had  a  fresh  and  strong  sense  of  the  much,  which 
France  had  yielded  to  us,  in  return  for  our  exoneration 
of  her  from  the  demands  of  our  injured  citizens,  we 
would  have  paid  these  claims,  notwithstanding  our 
small  abilit y,  at  that  time,  to  pay  them.  In  connexion 
with  my  reference  to  the  long  concealment  of  the  chief 
proofs  of  the  validity  of  these  claims,  I  would  state,  that 
of  the  twenty-five  Congressional  Eeports  on  these 
claims,  all,  that  were  adverse  to  them,  were  three  made 
during  that  concealment. 

The  second  objection  to  the  payment  of  these  claims 
is,  that,  even  if  they  were  valid,  they  are  now  quite  too 


LETTER  TO   HON.   H.    C.   GOODWIN.  417 

old  to  be  acknowledged  and  paid.  Such  was  the  ob 
jection,  as  long  ago,  as  when  the  chief  proofs  in  ques 
tion  were  discovered.  Even  then  the  sense  of  the  im 
measurable  value  of  what  we  had  received  from  France 
had,  to  a  great  extent,  died  out  of  the  public  mind. 
Even  then,  it  was  felt  to  be  cheaper  to  turn  the  back 
on  these  claims  than  to  acknowledge  and  pay  them. 
But  if  the  age  of  the  claims  was  so  influential  an  argu 
ment  against  them  then,  much  more  influential  will  it 
be  like  to  be  now,  when  that  age  is  doubled.  But  the 
argument  was  not  then,  nor  is  it  now,  entitled  to  any 
influence.  At  the  bar  of  a  sound  conscience  a  just 
claim  is  never  outlawed — never  obsolete — never  stale. 
We  have  been  guilty  of  a  very  deep  wrong,  in  not  pay 
ing  these  claims,  long  ago.  Shall  we  also  be  guilty  of 
taking  advantage  of  our  own  deep  wrong,  and  of  making 
our  unjust  delay  to  pay  these  claims  an  excuse  for  dis 
owning  them,  and  casting  them  aside  ? 

Another  objection  to  the  paying  of  these  claims  is, 
that  they  were  provided  for  under  treaties,  subsequent 
to  the  Convention  of  1800 — namely,  the  Louisiana 
Treaty ;  the  Florida  Treaty ;  and  Eives'  Treaty.  My 
answer  to  this  objection  is  1st  that  it  is  not  true :  2d 
that,  if  true,  nevertheless  the  bill  provides  against  pay 
ing  any  of  these  claims,  so  far  as  they  are  provided  for 
in  those  treaties :  and  3d  that,  whether  the  objection 
is  true  or  false,  the  claims  have  not  been  paid. 

Another  objection  is,  that  the  claims  are  in  the  hands 


418  LETTER   TO   HON.   H.   C.   GOODWIN. 

of  speculators,  who  purchased  them  at  a  great  discount, 
and,  in  many  instances,  for  a  mere  trifle.  To  this  ob 
jection  I  reply  1st  that  wherever  the  claims  are,  we 
should  pay  them  :  2d  that  they  are  not  in  the  hands  of 
speculators,  but  in  the  hands  of  the  original  claimants, 
and  their  descendants,  and  the  Insurance  Companies, 
which  lost  by  the  spoliations,  and,  also,  to  a  small  ex 
tent,  in  the  hands  of  those,  to  whom  they  were  trans 
ferred  by  the  operation  of  bankrupt  and  insolvent  laws: 
3d  that  the  bill  provides,  that  the  purchasers  of  any  of 
these  claims  shall  be  allowed  no  more  than  they  paid 
for  them  and  the  interest  on  what  they  paid. 

Another  objection  is,  that  our  treaties  with  France 
were  annulled  by  an  Act  of  Congress  in  1798 ;  and 
that,  therefore,  at  the  time  of  the  Convention  of  1800, 
there  were  no  treaties  left  to  set  off  against  our  surren 
der  of  the  claims  of  our  wronged  citizens  upon  France, 
But  that  act  did  not  have,  and  did  not  pretend  to  have, 
a  retrospective  operation.  Its  language  implied  the  full 
force  of  the  treaties  up  to  the  time  of  the  enactment, 
and  during  most  of  the  spoliations.  Again,  the  act 
could  have  no  power  to  annul  the  treaties.  It  takes 
as  many  to  unmake  a  bargain,  as  it  does  to  make  it. 
Nothing  is  better  settled  than  that  one  of  the  parties  to 
a  treaty  is  incapable  of  rescinding  it. 

I  pass  on  to  consider  the  most  relied  on  objection  to 
paying  these  claims.  It  is,  that  we  were  at  war  with 
France,  at,  and  after,  the  time,  when  they  accrued ;  that 


LETTER   TO   HON.    H.   C.    GOODWIN.  419 

our  treaties  with  her  were  thereby  annulled ;  and  that, 
hence,  we  had  not  to  purchase  satisfaction  of  the  treaties 
by  undertaking  to  pay  the  debts  of  France,  nor  by 
yielding  any  other  consideration.     But,  in  answer  to 
this  objection,  we  say,  1st  that  we  do  not  admit,  that 
these  treaties  could  be  annulled  by  war :  2d  that  we 
were  never  at  war  with  France — -war  never  having  been 
declared — general  reprisals  never  -having  been  authoriz 
ed — the  provisions  of  Congress  being  expressly  opera 
tive,  only  "in  case  war  should  break  out" — the  Courts 
of  the  two  nations  recognizing  no  war  between  them, 
but  both  holding  themselves  open  to  the  citizens  of 
both  nations :  3d  that  if  the  Convention  of  1800  did 
not  recognize,  and  abrogate,  the  treaties  ;  nevertheless, 
as  amended  by  the  additional  article,  in  which  "the  two 
States  renounce  the  respective  pretensions,  etc.,"  our 
Government  clearly  became  responsible  to  satisfy  the 
claims  in  question  :  4th  that,  even  if  the  treaties  were 
not  in  fact  binding  upon  us,  nevertheless  we  certainly 
did  discharge  France  from  those  claims,  in  order,  that 
we  might  be  released  from  the  treaties ;  and  that,  hence, 
it  is  not  competent  for  us  to  devolve  on  the  claimants 
the  loss  of  our  bad  bargain.     "Whether  the  bargain  was 
good  or  bad,  but  for  it  the  claims  would  have  continued 
to  exist  against  France,  and  would  have  been  paid  by 
France. 

Only  one  more  objection  to  the  payment  of  these 


420  LETTER  TO   HON.   H.   C.   GOODWIN, 

claims  remains  to  be  noticed.  It  is,  that  the  claimants 
were  prosecuting  their  business — were  engaged  in  their 
commercial  pursuits — at  their  own  risk.  But,  if  it  was 
at  their  own  risk,  nevertheless  our  Government  was 
bound  to  seek  redress  for  the  wrongs  and  losses,  which 
the  claimants  suffered.  The  Government  did  seek  such 
redress ;  and  it  did  obtain  it.  But  it  proved  a  faithless 
agent.  Instead  of  paying  over  to  its  principals  the  in 
demnity,  which  it  obtained  for  them,  it  put  that  indem 
nity  into  its  own  pocket,  and  kept  it  there.  Moreover, 
is  it  right  to  say,  that  the  commerce  in  question  was 
carried  on,  at  the  sole  risk  of  the  claimants  ?  By  no 
means.  There  was  not  only  the  general  obligation  of 
Government  to  protect,  in  all  such  cases ; — but  in  this 
case  our  Government  had  especially  bound  itself  to  en 
deavor  to  get  indemnity  for  losses.  At  the  time  it  did 
so,  our  Government  was  so  poor,  as  to  be  vitally  inter 
ested  in  the  continuance  and  extension  of  our  foreign 
commerce.  Its  empty  Treasury  was  in  the  most  urgent 
need  of  the  duties  on  imports.  Accordingly,  the  Secre 
tary  of  State,  Mr.  Jefferson,  upon  the  order  of  Presi 
dent  Washington,  issued  a  paper,  as  early  as  the  year 
1793,  encouraging  our  merchants,  who  had  embarked 
in  this  business,  to  face  its  risks ;  by  promising  them 
the  interposition  of  Government  for  their  safety. 

But  I  will  bring  my,  perhaps,  too  long  letter  to  a 
close.     We  have  seen,  that  the  objections  to  these  claims 


LETTER  TO  HON.   H.   C.   GOODWIN.  421 

are  unreasonable,  and,  altogether,  unworthy  of  admis 
sion.  We  have  seen,  that,  by  every  just  consideration 
they  should  be  paid.  Does  the  bill  provide  too  large  a 
sum  for  their  payment  ?  The  sum  is  far  too  small.  It 
provides  but  five  millions  of  dollars,  though  the  claims 
amount,  including  interest,  to  probably  thirty  or  forty 
millions  of  dollars.  In  the  year  1800,  our  Ministers  of 
fered  a  million  and  a  half  of  dollars  to  purchase  our  re 
lease  from  two  of  the  articles  in  our  treaties  with  France. 
But  France  would  not  have  sold  the  release  for  treble 
that  sum.  She  did,  however,  discharge  us,  from  all  our 
treaty  obligations  to  her,  in  consideration  of  our  dis 
charging  her  from  these  claims  of  our  plundered  citizens. 
It  is  noteworthy,  that  the  -million  and  a  half  of  dollars 
amount,  with  the  interest  thereon,  to  far  more  than  the 
bill  proposes  we  shall  pay. 

I  must  not  omit  to  remind  you,  that  the  authority  of 
many  of  the  greatest  names  in  our  early  history — names 
both  of  jurists  and  statesmen — even  Marshall  and 
Madison  and  Jefferson — is  on  the  side  of  the  undoubted 
justice  of  these  claims. 

In  the  name  of  justice,  of  humanity,  of  decency,  let 
not  Congress  again  turn  away  these  meritorious  claim 
ants.  If  we  are  not  willing  to  pay  them  ten  millions, 
let  us,  at  least,  be  willing  to  pay  them  five.  Let  us 
pay  something  on  these  claims,  whilst,  as  yet,  there  are 
grandchildren  of  the  original  sufferers  to  receive  it. 


422  LETTER  TO  HON.   H.   C.   GOODWIN. 

Most  of  those  sufferers  and  their  immediate  descend 
ants  have  gone  down  to  the  grave :  and,  in  many 
instances,  their  last  years  were  years  of  bitter  pov 
erty,  because  of  our  injustice.  I  repeat  it,  let  us  pay 
them  something,  ere  not  only  the  original  claimants, 
and  their  children,  but  their  grandchildren  also,  shall 
have  passed  beyond  the  reach  of  our  returning  sense  of 
justice.  Let  me  here  remark,  that  our  Government 
has  provided  indemnity,  to  the  amount  of  many  mil 
lions,  for  other  French  spoliations  on  our  commerce, 
and  for  British,  and  Spanish,  and  Danish,  and  other  yet 
spoliations  on  it.  But  no  provision  has  it  made  to  re 
lieve  the  sufferers  in  this  instance.  Cruel  discrimina 
tion  ! — and  as  causeless  as  cruel !  I  said  causeless.  It 
is  worse  than  this — for  the  claims  before  us  are  espe 
cially  obligatory — are  peculiarly  sacred. 

But  it  is  not  alone  from  regard  to  the  claimants,  that 
we  should  pay  these  claims.  It  is  also  due  to  the  honor 
and  the  heart  of  France.  She  inflicted  a  deep  wrong 
upon  many  of  our  citizens.  It  is  true,  that,  at  a  great 
price,  she  purchased  reparation  for  this  deep  wrong. 
But  the  reparation  was  never  made : — and,  until  it  is, 
not  only  will  her  sense  of  humanity  be  pained,  but  her 
merit,  in  purchasing  the  reparation,  will  lack  its  crown 
ing  glory.  I  scarcely  need  add,  that  our  own  nation 
will  be  dishonored  in  the  eyes  of  other  nations,  until 
we  shall  have  performed  this  duty,  which  France 


LETTER  TO  HON.   H.   C.   GOODWIN.  423 

bought  us  to  perform ;  which,  now,  whilst  our  Trea 
sury  is  overflowing,  it  is  so  easy  to  perform ;  and  which 
cannot  be  postponed  again,  without  manifesting  a 
stranger  insensibility  than  ever  to  the  calls  of  justice 
and  humanity. 

Eespectfully  yours, 

GERRIT  SMITH. 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 
BERKELEY 


Return  to  desk  from  which  borrowed. 
This  book  is  DUE  on  the  last  date  stamped  below. 


f-EB 


71955 


1  9  2003 

REC'D 

WAR     '6 


3lOct'64L 


• 


LD  21-100i».9,'47(A5702sl6)476 


DEPT: 


YP 

U.C.  BERKELEY  LIBRARIES 


2.(o\ 


THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


